Talk:James Stewart (disambiguation)

message: *Comment. Primary topic means more common than any other, not more common than every other. You only have to compare the most common with the second most common. You do not take the percentage of the total. For example, John Smith is a very common English name, but if someone with that name became, for example, a popular actor (see John Smith (actor)), even though there were, say, 1,000 WP entries for people named John Smith, they would quickly become the primary topic. See, for example, Will Smith (disambiguation), vs. William Smith. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  But the definition of 'primary target' should be discussed at WT:Disambiguation#Primary topic uber alles. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  Primary topic often is taken to mean more common than all others, and should.  Else it becomes a trivial distinction and a contest of favorites.  --Una Smith (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that that erroneous interpretation is commonly expressed. But that is not what the guideline says. It says any other, not every other. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

text: This debate was split out from the "Jimmy" versus "James" item - Jimmy lost.  see Talk:James Stewart (actor). (John User:Jwy talk) 16:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should reopen that discussion here, I believe a broad poll of generally knowedgeable Wikipedia editors would conclude the article should be at Jimmy Stewart. Unfortunately some of the primary editors of the article seem to have an entrenched opinion otherwise, which made the discussion a non-starter at Talk:James Stewart (actor). That is, it got shot down... Yworo (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Restarting a move proposal that was soundly defeated involved the participation in the discussion by a large number of editors who have been actively involved in the creation and development of the article.  FWiW, re-read the "string" that was involved and stick to the topic, rather than pronouncing characterizations of other editors. 18:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

text: It's not appropriate to brand other editors simply because they had the temerity to disagree with you, or to assume that the "generally knowledgeable Wikipedia editors" would agree with you.  (Does that mean that the people who disagree with you are lacking in knowledge?) The proposal was discussed by a number of editors.  A "non-starter" would be a proposal that failed to attract discussion, but it's not a "non-starter" on the basis that the result didn't go your way.  Rossrs (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) I think discussion at Talk:James Stewart (actor) is more appropriate if it is to be done - with pointers from here, perhaps.  (Don't get me wrong, I'm a Jimmy fan myself, but the interactions of the two discussions are limited and subtle and are easily confused, IMO).  And lets keep it cool.  (John User:Jwy talk) 18:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the point raised by older ≠ wiser, Wikipedia is an entity which maintains its credibility on the basis of sources and references provided at the bottom of its articles.  All encyclopedias from Britannica, Americana, Compton's, Word Book and so on, to all the standard library resources such as Current Biography, Biography Index, Readers Guide to Periodical Literature, International Index, Educational Index, The New York Times Index, The Wall Street Journal Index... are unanimous in using "James Stewart", while also using "Jimmy Carter", "Bill Clinton" and "Johnny Carson", among others, since those were the appellations which the individuals themselves used as their names, whether on film credits, election ballots, presidential signatures or Tonight Show openings.—Roman Spinner (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break