Talk:Deathly Hallows (disambiguation)
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
See also
editDiscussion here. — LlywelynII 23:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Requested move
edit- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deathly Hallows (disambiguation) → Deathly Hallows – Per WP:2DABS and WP:MALPLACED. As discussed at Talk:Deathly Hallows, there is no single primary topic: instead, both the sense of magical object and shorthand for HP book 7 are quite common. [Google Images and vanilla Google prefer the sense of magical objects, but Google Books shows a slightly preference for the sense of shorthand for the book. Ngram's wild cards aren't very helpful, giving no results for wildcards that, e.g., would compare the frequency of 'Deathly Hallows is' versus 'Deathly Hallows are'. Vanilla Google is actually very bad for this sort of thing, but as a Fermi approximation "are" shows up about 4x more than where the redirect was previously pointing.] Given that this means the redirect should point at the dab, the dab page should simply be placed at the main namespace. — LlywelynII 14:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- And please wait for the RM to finish before recasting the disambiguation page as if it were a fait accompli. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- The status of the disambiguation page has no relationship with the RM: it's a separate conversation. If you truly believe that the magical objects (as such) are not the PRIMARY or 2DAB topic, kindly present some evidence of that. I've presented what I've found but not seen anything to the contrary. I'm more than willing to be shown wrong (and in fact was: I thought the magical objects where the sole primary topic but search showed them both fairly common). — LlywelynII 14:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- The status of the dab page reflects the current article arrangement. I truly believe what Wikipedia's software does (when you're not trying to treat your view as the new consensus without discussion): Deathly Hallows leads to the book. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Software? — LlywelynII 09:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- That would be the stuff running on Wikipedia's servers that processes the incoming HTTP requests and sends back the HTTP responses with the HTML of the Wikipedia page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Software? — LlywelynII 09:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- The status of the dab page reflects the current article arrangement. I truly believe what Wikipedia's software does (when you're not trying to treat your view as the new consensus without discussion): Deathly Hallows leads to the book. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- The status of the disambiguation page has no relationship with the RM: it's a separate conversation. If you truly believe that the magical objects (as such) are not the PRIMARY or 2DAB topic, kindly present some evidence of that. I've presented what I've found but not seen anything to the contrary. I'm more than willing to be shown wrong (and in fact was: I thought the magical objects where the sole primary topic but search showed them both fairly common). — LlywelynII 14:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. There is no consensus at Talk:Deathly Hallows that there is no single primary topic, as claimed in the move proposal. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your point has no bearing on the RM. There is no such claim in the move proposal. (There is evidence that there is no primary topic (to the extent there is, that topic is not the current redirect). There is some annoyance with my edits there, but no evidence being presented whatsoever in opposition.) Kindly present some contradictory evidence, rather than avoiding improving the entry simply out of personal animosity towards the submitter. — LlywelynII 14:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- "There is no such claim in the move proposal", but "As discussed at Talk:Deathly Hallows, there is no single primary topic". There is no such conclusion from any discussion at Talk:Deathly Hallows. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your point has no bearing on the RM. There is no such claim in the move proposal. (There is evidence that there is no primary topic (to the extent there is, that topic is not the current redirect). There is some annoyance with my edits there, but no evidence being presented whatsoever in opposition.) Kindly present some contradictory evidence, rather than avoiding improving the entry simply out of personal animosity towards the submitter. — LlywelynII 14:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. The primary topic of the term is the book, the name of which created it. Every adaptation of the book serves to enhance the primacy of the book as the meaning of the term. bd2412 T 20:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.