Talk:Powers

message: Do NOT add other uses of "power" or "powers" here. Everything other than the surname Powers belongs at Power.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Srleffler (talk • contribs) 04:55, 17 May 2006
:Uh... says who? The edit that you removed was a link to the critically acclaimed comic book series named Powers. It's not named "Power". It is not about "forces and abilities". It is not reasonable to only list the series under that page.
:Really, how on earth is anyone supposed to find information about it if they cannot search for it by name and don't remember the author, and typing in the series' name doesn't get them what they need, even though the article exists? I mean, what kind of a disambiguation page is this supposed to be? Why does this particular generic disambiguation page only accept the names of people, whereas multiple other generic disambiguation pages actually serve the purpose of disambiguation? If you really want this article to be a disambiguation page about people with the last name of Powers and only a disambiguation page about people with the last name of Powers, may I suggest you move it to Powers (surname) (which is a well-established practice) so that it's obvious to everyone that the page intentionally has a very limited scope? (Although I must say that I question the need for that as long as there are only six people with this particular surname, but anyway.) In fact, on further reflection, I have to say that if you really insist that nothing but people may be listed here, then you should move the page. Otherwise it just makes no sense to enforce a policy like this. If nothing else, how could anyone know that they aren't supposed to add anything other than people here? -- Captain Disdain 05:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've just re-added 
:* John Robert Powers Agency, a modeling agency in New York City, see John Robert Powers
:* John Robert Powers Schools for acting, modeling, grooming, and self development, see John Robert Powers
It had been deleted with the comment, we didn't need three links to the same person. The topic, however, is not the person--the topic are an agency and a school that are named after that person. They're different things. When people look for them, they won't look in the "person" section. Just like nobody will search for "Harvard University" in the person section of "Harvard". The only difference is that the school and agency happen to be in the same article. That's no reason, however, to hide where they are. ;o) BTW, the fact that the person, the agency and the school happen to be on the same disambiguation page, shouldn't be a reason for exclusion either. As long as they're different things, people will look for them and may very well not know that the respective other thing/person exists, so each should be mentioned...
And just in case someone thinks now I'm trying to advertise or market anything or whatever: I have absolutely no relation to this agency and the school. In fact I only came across the term "Powers model" a short while ago and had to ask at the Wikipedia reference desk what it meant. So I simply want to make sure that the next naïve person like me will easily find what he's looking for... which to me knowledge is the very purpose of disambiguation pages anyways. :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agency & School 

message: A recent "cleanup" of the page was more than just a cleanup. It removed information. I appreciate the attention to proper sorting of the names, and removal of details that does not meet WP:DAB rules, but that does license the editor to dumb down the page.
Some formal names were reduced to their nicknames. Others lost their nicknames or middle initials. Examples: David Lane Powers became D. Lane Powers, Darrel C. "Shifty" Powers became Darrel Powers. While the result matches the titles of the links, this information cannot simply be removed en masse without a case by case review. In many examples, the prior version matches a redirect, or simply adds information that would otherwise be difficult to locate in the index, which is part of the role of DAB pages.
One name was dropped altogether, James Powers (businessman). In this particular example, the article is linked as a business, but the person described on the same page has lost a link. Since there are other James Powers, this will cause confusion to researchers. This is quite similar to the issue in the second entry on this talk page (the "Harvard" argument).
Other information has been abbreviated where there is no need to do so, which may cause some researchers to have to work harder to find what they need. For example, all references to "United States Representative" have been abbreviated to "US Representative."
Finally, an anchor link reference (span ID) was dropped for no reason. Such anchors are invisible, do no harm in their presence, and may cause harm in their removal.
In general, I believe DAB pages should provide MORE index entries within the page, not FEWER, since their main function is to find other information within the encyclopedia. If that means multiple links for the same person, that's fine. It makes sense to find a person both by his/her legal name and well-known nickname. It makes sense to include a company and its founder separately, even if there is no separate page for each (especially if one redirects to the other).
I would fix the individual errors made during the "cleanup," but they are many. Therefore, I have reverted the page, and propose that any cleanup be more judicious, careful, and thought-out in its changes.
Dovid (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read carefully Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. Dab pages should only contain info enough to identify the entry. Entries should not be piped, and no entries to redirects should be added. Anyway, there is no article on James Powers (businessman), dab pages should disambiguate Wikipedia, not the whole world. The article on his business is indeed listed. Do not revert again, if you are not satisfied with one or other entry as now shown, then edit this entry, following the guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the liberty of adding an indent to your response, to make the thread readable. I'm sure you didn't mean to come off that way, but the response could be taken as condescending. I'm an experienced editor, and I know WP, style, and DAB pretty well. You are miscontruing them. I quote the led of the article you ref:::That's the important thing to remember when figuring out how to use the details in the rest of the article. Removing common nicknames from a name goes counter to that directive, as does the reverse, showing only  the nickanme. Since it does that about 15 time, it makes the DAB significantly less useful as a search aid, and amounts to unintentional vandalism. If there were only one or two such mistakes, I would take it upon myself to fix them one by one. But, since there are so many, it justifies the revert. If you want to make improvements, go ahead, but please don't make disimprovements, or leave it to others to fix something when you break it. I also call your attention to the WP:PIPING list of exceptions in DAB pages that reinforces my point above. In particular, see the Jim Carey example, for its implicit point about nicknames, and explicit point about redirects and piping. I do take to heart the importance of the section guideline for the James Powers article, and will be making that edit shortly, though the E/ESRB example lends legitimacy to myh prior version, which you also edited. Dovid (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If the nicknames are so important, then consider moving the articles to the previously piped versions, and then update dab page. Besides, exception means exception, there can't be 15 exceptions on one single page... Or, consider adding the nickname in the parentheses, as I did with "Shifty" Powers. As a rule, on dab pages there should be no redirects, and no piping. So, if you think piping is necessary, there is something wrong with the article name. Think about it, I'm sure we can sort it out. Kraxler (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the guidelines, the page is now as it ought to be. Do not claim to "clean up" when actually messing it up. PLEASE read the guidelines. All of them. Kraxler (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More than a cleanup