Jump to content

Talk:Bill Potts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bill Potts (Doctor Who) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also section

[edit]

Per MOS:SEEALSO, I added a see also section to this page, since Bill is a shortform of William. Another user has objected for unclear reasons (other than from what appears to be a personal preference). I am opening a discussion to gauge broader consensus on this matter. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations of IDONTLIKEIT are completely unfounded, as I have explicitly stated why they are not to be included. So, I reiterated for the third time: unless the two additions were commonly known as Bill rather than William, then they should not be included, regardless of whether they are under a "See also" section or not. The page is for Bill Potts, not William Potts - they are different. Can you provide sources for this, or is it simply unsourced original research?
A simple fact that you do not seem to understand overly clearly is that given that it is your content being disputed, it stands to remove the content until there is consensus to include it. So, I recommend to you to self-revert; if not, a report may be filed for edit-warring to force your contributions onto the page as an attempt to own it. -- AlexTW 01:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples: William Smith, William Bailey, Bill Evans (disambiguation). It is widespread current practice, though that does not tell us that it should be. But even on pages where a rigorous separation by common name is maintained - like William Jones/Bill Jones/Billy Jones/Will Jones - there are "see also" sections linking to analogous disambiguation pages. That's because...well, "Bill" is often short for "William". I really don't see why that's controversial. (Do we need a reliable source substantiating this?) Chubbles (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Where they known commonly in the public by the nickname of "Bill"? If not, there's your answer. Everything needs to be sourced on Wikipedia - as an editor, you should know this. Cheers. -- AlexTW 06:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I, indeed, implicitly gestured toward OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and then dismissed it, because I am not a caricature of my own argument. Please pay me that respect. Since the names "William" and "Bill" are commonly used interchangeably, there is good reason people might use one in an attempt to find someone whose article is located at the other. (I cannot provide a reliable source about Wikipedia user behavior on this, since I am not doing qualitative sociological research on Wikipedians; I am making an argument from simple logic, not empirical data.) There is, thus, good reason to include a link from one to the other on disambigation pages (William Taylor is another example). Since they are different forms of each other, as MOS:DABSEEALSO both permits and recommends, the links are reasonable. The disambiguation page Bill notes that it is a "common nickname for William", but this is unsourced (and does not need one, because it is blatantly obvious and trivially verifiable - we agree on that, surely?). Chubbles (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, since you were directed to the policy that relates to this more than once, given several examples, and continue to disagree and argue, what else can it be but a matter of personal preference? On the issue of the page, the disambiguation page should probably be at William Potts (disambiguation) rather than here, with the jazz musician included in the main body (since Bill is a shortform of William) and the Doctor Who character included in a see also section. Then all we have to decide is whether Bill Potts redirects to William Potts (disambiguation) or something else. This is Paul (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:DABABBREV this is not appropriate as the articles do not mention these people were known by this abbreviation of William. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should most definitely not be located at William Potts (disambiguation), as neither of the articles mentioned at all that they have been known as William, especially per Dresken's comment, a guideline that I was not aware of. Cheers on that! Bill may be a nickname, referring to Chubbles's comment of The disambiguation page Bill notes that it is a "common nickname for William"; however, you cannot instantly connect the two of them as identical in every situation possible. Unless you start a second RM, this disambiguation article remains exactly where it is. And what policies have been linked to? I see only guidelines, and they are general rules and principles, not governing laws. It seem that you accuse those who disagree with you with IDONTLIKEIT, and then talk to them about their behaviour against you. But as I've said, neither of our behaviours are for discussion here. -- AlexTW 11:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see the names have been removed again albeit by a different editor. I won't revert it because I don't wish to engage with Alex in his/her favoured passtime (i.e., edit warring), but I will note that I suspect meat puppetry is at work here, since Dresken has offered an identical argument to the one given by Alex, and like him/her, Dresken has also offered a poor interpretation of WP:DABABBREV. Bill is not an abbreviations, an initial or an acronym of William, and I think you're both guilty of editing in bad faith. Alex, your reply to my suggestion above seems to suggest you're arguing for argument's sake. I believe, though I doubt I can prove it, that you feel this strengthens your case for having Bill Potts as the primary topic. All you're doing, however, is giving Wikipedia a bad name, and in turn also giving Doctor Who fans a bad reputation, as your username ties you to the programme. Shame on you. This is Paul (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Continue to make accusations against both editors. See where it may get you. If you suspect something, report it with any evidence that you believe that you have, else quit your foul folly. You've given zero continuation to this discussion, nor do I think you plan to, and are only attempting to further your argument by throwing out random claims. Unless you have further guidelines or policy to back up your suggestions, and that actually support what you state... Good day to you. -- AlexTW 11:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel my interpretation of DABABBREV is sound - Abbreviation is "a shortened form of a word or phrase" - Bill is a shortening of William. I would also advise you to brush up on WP:PERSONAL, especially Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Dresken (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When an editor with less than a thousand edits, and who edits occasionally, jumps into a discussion with a near identical argument, then that's suspicious behaviour. Meanwhile, for the second time today your comments appear to contain the hint of a threat. Chill, cobber! This is Paul (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Dresken? An editor who's been here for longer than me? Oh, my comment was definitely meant as such. If you continue to make such gross and false accusations with nothing to back you up, or at least a refusal to provide such evidence, I will decide to take it further. Hope that made it clear for you, have a nice day! -- AlexTW 13:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"jumps into a discussion" - You posted on two talk pages about this recently - neither of those are a private conversations that I am not allowed to participate in. "with a near identical argument" - all I did was point out a guideline that agreed with Alex's argument - I didn't invent it - so it would seem whoever wrote that part of the guideline must also be part of this conspiracy you are concocting - maybe you had better start flinging accusations at them as well. Since you bought up WP:EDITCOUNTs, I am surprised someone with such a high one seems to have such trouble with guidelines/policy and basic etiquette. Dresken (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just gonna note that the close connection between "Bill" and "William" is reflected in that very guideline, WP:MOSDAB WP:DAB, in the section Redirects to disambiguation pages (the example is William Cox). As for the editor dispute...it's not all that surprising that some other Whoville editor would weigh in here, and I see no overt evidence of collusion. I guess what surprises me is the alacrity with which Who regulars have sought to crowd out any other potential content at this title. It indicates that WP:3O is probably a valuable path to take to help resolve whether "see also" material is permissible to include on this disambiguation page. May we agree to seek outside opinions? Chubbles (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Outside opinion sounds like a great idea. I had thought of it myself, but wasn't sure what the procedure would be as it involves more than one person. Happy for you to file a request there, if you're planning to do that. As for the collusion stuff, things got a bit heated earlier on, largely because I didn't like Alex's tone, which did sound like an intent to intimidate ("The quicker you do, the nicer you might find your experience here on Wikipedia" being an example). I suspect it's like you say – a case of Whoville vs the rest. They probably need to get out a bit more. This is Paul (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts I'm happy to do it. This is Paul (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You both are of course welcome to pursue whatever avenue you feel is appropriate, though I do believe my interpretation of the guideline is correct here - and will happily discuss the merits of that rationale. With that in mind, to discuss what @Chubbles: raised, I cannot locate the section you mention nor any reference to Bill or William in WP:MOSDAB - so I unfortunately am not sure what you are trying to show. That aside, to also address the William Cox example - it is different from this case for the exact reason described in WP:DABABBREV - the usage appears in the linked articles - I have pasted from the first sentence from each article and "William" appears as their actual name for each of the Bill or Billy articles:

Now to address your other off topic concerns: @This is Paul: I am sorry if you have been offended by someone else's tone - however I have received nothing but explicit hostility and accusations directly from you - and you continue that behaviour even in the same post where you are seeking to state you are offended They probably need to get out a bit more. I'll remind you again of WP:PERSONAL. @Chubbles: alacrity with which Who regulars have sought to crowd out - I haven't attempted to "crowd out" here - to me the guideline in this case seems quite clear. I will note I also haven't "weighed in" blindly to "crowd out" at Talk:Bill Potts (Doctor Who)#Requested move 18 April 2017. I will let you know that I am reading about how Primary topics are decided and when to use disambig pages - but I definitely endeavour to not let personal opinion lead my input to discussions - indeed for the RM my initial belief was different to what I am discovering in the WP:MOSDAB. Dresken (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dresken:: I cannot locate the section you mention - this is at WP:DAB, following on WP:DABABBREV. My apologies for mispiping. Chubbles (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for the correction. I don't believe that section applies to this scenario - it is discussion when you are possibly allowed to WP:REDIRECT to a disambiguation pages - it does not imply that other parts of the guideline should be ignored (So one would assume WP:DABABBREV still applies). And then the example given for Bill Cox is only to illustrate that when a redirect is created, that it isn't a WP:Doubleredirect. It doesn't appear to state or imply that Bill always has to redirect to William (or vice versa). Cheers, Dresken (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So if I understand your logic, we should have another disambiguation page at William Potts, which goes to the current article (say, at William Potts (police officer)) and William E. Potts, with a "see also" for Bill Potts (musician), but not Bill Potts (Doctor Who), because she is not known as William? This would rigorously maintain the standard you've set that only Bills known as "William"s can be mentioned at disambig, and vice versa. Chubbles (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't "set" the standard - I am only reading the existing guidelines. To me, your "William Potts (disambig)" proposal is a valid interpretation of the guideline that exists. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that violates common sense and is an example of hidebound devotion to the letter of the law while violating its spirit, but I certainly can't argue that it isn't consistent. I'm ready to hear from outside voices about whether I'm way out in left field on this one. Chubbles (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly, though after my earlier skirmish with them I didn't want to be the first to say it. I'm also starting to think they might be the Crackers 'n' Smash of Wikipedia. This is Paul (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I didn't make these arguments clear enough previously: I believe the spirit of adding articles to a disambiguation page is to reduce confusion - I also believe including that articles that do not contain the term increases confusion - so the common sense that I believe should apply here is not include them. If you did think I was not applying good rationale to my arguments, I do wish you would discuss the rationale than throw wide-net suspicions about my intentions. Dresken (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Third Opinion

[edit]

I am requesting a third opinion with regard to the above discussion. This is Paul (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O most likely will not be given; an alternate request needs to be filed elsewhere. This is per the 3O page.

Request for comment

[edit]
(non-admin closure) The page William Potts (disambiguation) has been created. Consensus developed for mutual See Also links between that page and this one, rather than listing individual Bills or Williams Potts in one another's dab pages. Dab links are in place; no further action required. Snuge purveyor (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this page include a see also section listing individuals named William Potts. This is Paul (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome other opinion, but I would like to ensure this point is addressed by any commenters on this matter: Are there reasons WP:DABABBREV should be ignored for this instance? Dresken (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not required per the above discussion. Not all Bills are automatically Williams, and not all Williams are automatically known as Bill. -- AlexTW 22:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To summarize briefly for new commentators: the rub is over whether persons named "William Potts" should be included in a "See Also" section on the disambiguation page "Bill Potts". Those who have argued in favor have noted that "Bill" is, in general, a common short form for "William", and that such an inclusion increases the usability of the disambiguation page and would be consistent with MOS:DABSEEALSO #3, "Different forms of Title". Those who have argued against maintain that since, in this specific instance, the "William Potts"es in question are not known to have been commonly referred to as "Bill", they do not belong on this disambiguation page, and that such an exclusion reduces confusion at the disambiguation page and would be consistent with WP:DABABBREV. Chubbles (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If a person named William Potts who does not normally go by Bill Potts is notable, there is no significant chance someone looking for his article will look up Bill Potts. In fact, listing the non-Bill Williams would waste the time of a reader who is looking for Bill Potts.
Thank you very much Chubbles for the summary; I did not look at the previous discussion. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not see this discussion before I was reverted. Actually, I solved your problem by creating a disambiguation page on William Potts with a "see also"-link to point to it from Bill Potts. But unfortuntely, Chubbles dit not like that and reverted this chic solution for your dispute. The Banner talk 10:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: Would that it were so simple. Editors opposing the listing of individual William Pottses here - would you object to the inclusion of a link to the general disambiguation page for William Potts, now that it has been created? As you can see from the page history, I pre-emptively reverted the inclusion of such on this page, though naturally I in fact support its inclusion. Chubbles (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this page should cross-link to William Potts (disambiguation). Unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that the various William Potts listed there were never known or referenced as "Bill Potts" there is potential for confusion. older ≠ wiser 19:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By now you have reverted it twice. Do you try to make a point or do you want to have the dispute solved? The Banner talk 19:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two reasons. One, I am making a good-faith effort to keep the page as-is until consensus is established, especially since consensus has not swung toward including William Pottses here. Two, parties who add William Potts to this page are presumptively parties interested in the outcome of this debate, but they may not know it exists. Chubbles (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After having a look at WP:CANVASS, it's apparent to me that this may be considered inappropriate, and I apologize if this appears as a strategy of vote-stacking. Instead, may we place some sort of notice at Bill Potts that this RfC is ongoing? I would self-revert, but it would not accomplish anything. Chubbles (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that the various William Potts listed there were never known or referenced as "Bill Potts" there is potential for confusion. - I believe that the reverse is actually the correct view in this matter - if these people were ever known this way it would be in their articles and sourced (i.e. conclusively demonstrated) and that it is confusing and unencyclopedic to imply a connection that doesn't actually exist. I believe that consensus has previously reached the same conclusion as specified at WP:DABABBREV. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages are not articles. Bill is an extremely common familiar form of William. Before the William Potts disambiguation page existed, I'd agree that listing individual William Potts on the Bill Potts disambiguation couldn't be defensible unless the individual articles supported the usage. But there is no such bar to cross-referencing disambiguation pages for related names. older ≠ wiser 12:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


This discussion is a little difficult to read and I'm not sure how the pages looked at the beginning. However, there is a dab page at Bill Potts and a dab page at William Potts. Bill is commonly short for William and William is commonly shortened to Bill - both should be linked to the other in their see also sections - not a repeat list, just a link to the other dab. Do you disagree with this, Chubbles and AlexTheWhovian? Or were your objections solely to a full list? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a smashing idea. ATW hasn't weighed in here in a few days; Dresken, from his recent comment above, appears to believe that would not be a satisfactory solution. I presume that This Is Paul would be in favor of it. That exhausts the list of vested interests. Chubbles (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry I missed them in the discussion. Pinging Dresken and This is Paul. I would agree with Dresken that listing Williams in the main part of a Bill dab would violate WP:DABABBREV (unless the intro made it clear it was a dab page for Williams and Bills). However, this is a link to another dab in the see also section that I am proposing, which would fit with MOS:DABSEEALSO. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DABSEEALSO appears to be only about the ordering of a disambig page - that is how the sections should be ordered if they exist. It does not appear to be about the criteria for what should and should not be included on the page. So I don't think that changes the bar for inclusion at all. I don't believe wikipedia is about linking for linking's sake - as there are no William Potts known as Bill on the destination disambig page, I don't see how adding link would benefit anybody as it is making a connection that the articles themselves do not - which is what says to me it should not be added. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how me not commenting here as much of a stand, but I don't see the need for the links pointing to each other's disambiguation articles is needed on either article. If they want Bill Potts, they look up Bill Potts. If they want William Potts, they look up William Potts. Unless you have a source explicitly stating that all Williams are called Bill, and all Bills are Williams, then its unnecessary. Also, best if editors speak for themselves, and other editors don't speak for them. Top suggestion. -- AlexTW 01:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have a source explicitly stating that all Williams are called Bill, and all Bills are Williams, then its unnecessary. This has it completely backwards in terms of being user-friendly. It is trivial to establish that Bill is an extremely common familiar form of William. Unless you can definitively show that no users would ever try to find a "William Potts" by looking for "Bill Potts", excluding the cross-reference is a disservice to the reader. older ≠ wiser 01:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a service that displays outgoing links from a specific article? Because if so, I'd be more than happy to show it. -- AlexTW 02:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear precisely what it is you're asking for or how it has any relevance for this discussion. older ≠ wiser 02:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proof of your assertion that any user does search for people known only as William Potts by typing "Bill Potts". We don't have to accept the argument as true because it difficult to disprove. This type of argument is sometimes known as Russell's teapot. However what can be proven is that all Williams on the disambiguation page are not known as Bill Potts in their respective articles. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So rather than include a single line with a completely reasonable cross-reference to a related term, you think it better to just assume that the existing Wikipedia articles are in fact sufficient proof that these individuals are NEVER known as Bill Potts and that no reader would ever search for them under that name. Sorry, but that seems patently ridiculous. Please, by all means, provide definitive proof that all Williams on the disambiguation page were never known as Bill Potts and that no reader will ever search for them as such. To assume otherwise is the epitome of arrogance. older ≠ wiser 03:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that that would be for you to do. If everyone linked every article to another article based solely on what everyone believed to be a valid link, the entire Wiki would become a serious case of overlinked. I would note that individual editors may all believe that their personal solution is the best, it seems that the tension is rising here - phrases such as "patently ridiculous" and "arrogance" against other editors really aren't supporting your case. -- AlexTW 03:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not on me to justify strawman (or overstated) versions of my argument. What I actually said is easily verifiable. I assert that if these people were notably known as Bill then it should be in their articles and sourced. If these people are not notably known as Bill then there is no reason to create a connection when there is not actually one. Dresken (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're rationale depends on Wikipedia articles as being reliable sources. But in any case, including a cross reference in see also is nothing more than a convenience link, recognizing that these names are related. Consider the following use case. Someone heard or saw a reference to a "Bill Potts". None of the "Bill Potts" currently on the dab page fit the description. Now perhaps there simply is not an article on this person. But then maybe there's an article on him under "William Potts". Providing a cross reference link makes it is easy for them to check. How is this not a considerate editorial choice? older ≠ wiser 04:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that we do know of one person who is definitely known as both - that, of course, is Bill Potts (musician). I take it there is no quarrel with including a "See Also" to Bill Potts at William Potts for that reason? That convenience must be provided in only one direction? Chubbles (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lawyer is also known interchangeable as William/Bill Potts [1][2]. That makes both people on the dab page as known as both. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to the logic presented by Dresken, as I understand it, that would still justify only a link from William to Bill, and not from Bill to William. Chubbles (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, and I note that the William Potts dab page points to Bill Potts (disambiguation). As to the actual question, I see neither good nor harm coming from it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add a "See also" to William Potts (disambiguation) per MOS:DABSEEALSO, especially 4.2. Likely misspellings of Title. This sort of thing is absolutely standard on {{hndis}} pages. It helps readers navigate, which is the whole point. It doesn't matter whether or not any William was ever known as Bill - someone searching might think they were. Narky Blert (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and express extreme disgust at the behavior of all involved in the original slap fight. Link to William Potts (disambiguation), no individual "William"s, and GO OUTSIDE. Yes, you. —swpbT 18:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include a see also link to William Potts (disambiguation). Regardless of whether any of the William Potts have ever been known as "Bill Potts", the two names are similar enough and easy to confuse, so a "see also" should be included to the disambiguation page. There's no point listing any individual William unless he has been commonly known as "Bill". – Uanfala (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include See also link to the William Potts dab page because any Bills might be formally William just as any Williams might be informally Bill. Or Merge the dab pages as is often done for similar variants.PamD 07:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So...it looks like that is the conclusion of the RfC, and it appears we are no closer to coming to any sort of decision as to whether or not to include the convenience link to the disambig page. I'd be curious to know whether @Giraffedata: feels any different about the issue if the disambig link, rather than the individual entries, is included. Chubbles (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume that "that" which you call the conclusion of the RfC is LegoBot's automatic ending of it because it has been open for 30 days. You might be misinterpreting that, because LegoBot's action doesn't carry any authority - it's just a housekeeping action designed to clean up stale RfCs that people neglected to end. If you think there is more to discuss that could benefit by more commenters, by all means re-open the RfC (by putting a new {{rfc}} tag on it).
I think the idea of linking to the William Potts disambiguation page is entirely separate from the question on which this RfC requests comments, so I can't say that my earlier stated position (there should not be a section listing individual William Potts) has changed. But on that separate question, I do favor having the link to the disambiguation page, especially if it explains why: that sometimes William is an alternate form of the name Bill. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I did misinterpret that bot action. So, the general purpose of the RfC changed midstream, once the disambig page William Potts had been created (thanks to The Banner). After that point, all new voices were in favor of the convenience link to the disambig page, as was I. Giraffedata was opposed to listing individuals but is in favor of linking to the disambig page (an important distinction, and thank you for weighing in again). Unless I am reading someone wrong here (and stop me if I am), that means that the only people who do not support the inclusion of the convenience link to the disambig page are people who were part of the conversation before the RfC started. As The Banner has noted, that does sound rather like we are closer to consensus, but I am loath to draw any conclusions as a party with vested interests. Alex, Dresken - any thoughts on finding a way to put a bow on this affair? Chubbles (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hearing no objections...perhaps it is time for me to self-revert? Chubbles (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry had not seen you last post - I've made the change to "put the bow" as you say. While I still have an opposing view, I can acknowledge the clear consensus. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the consensus was to add the link, not the extra text you are editwarring over, Dresken. The Banner talk 23:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted once and have left it. But whatever, good on you for flinging unnecessary aspersions about. Dresken (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

American Football player

[edit]

Hoping to head the inevitable off at the pass here...the redlink to the football player was removed, citing Wikipedia:Red_link#Disambiguation_pages. That guideline notes, "Red links can be used in disambiguation pages if existing encyclopedic articles have such red links.", and indeed, the page linked to (on the 1934 Pirates season) has a redlink - as it should, since, having played in a fully professional league, Potts meets WP:NGRIDIRON and so should have an article. Chubbles (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Potts&oldid=1200029101"