Talk:Blade Runner (disambiguation)

message: I don't think this page is a good idea. All this information can be easily integrated in the Blade Runner article itself. [vaceituno|vaceituno] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaceituno (talk • contribs) 09:24, 2 August 2006
: "Easily" doesn't count. Merging the Blade Runner and The Bladerunner topics into one article would ill serve both topics. The nature of the novel beyond "also dystopian" is irrelevant clutter to the film. And the novel (as opposed to the relationship of the titles) is, no matter what your interest in it may be, of independent interest to users who shouldn't peer into the crevices of the film's article to find it.  While the novel article is currently a stub, there is plenty of material (see Talk:The Bladerunner) to flesh it out, including evidence of the opposing political orientations between book and screenplay. --Jerzy•t 21:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: _ _ Ref: WP:MOSDAB
_ _ Dabs are intended to help a user find an article that either could have had the title being Dab'd as its title, or that include encyclopedic info that fulfills the role of such an article.  They can do two other jobs well without impairing that function:
# Soliciting, via a rdlk, the creation of such an article, or
# (in the See also section) directing wisely a user working under the burden of a reasonable common misspelling or misunderstanding of a suitable title.   
Lk'g to a article on a generic term for which the Dab'd title is a specific instance, but does not mention the Dab'd title, is simply passing off a dict def as encyclopedic matter.  And even if the Dab'd title is mentioned, there must be encyclopedic content on its topic there, before the title's Dab can link there.  The three brand entries lk'd to generically related articles may or may not be reasonable candidates for new articles; i am converting them to rd-lk entries and leaving it to others to decide whether the articles are feasible or the lks should simply be discarded. The former entries are preserved in comments for the benefit of editors considering creation of articles -- or they could be moved here to Talk.
_ _ The Blade Runner movie-tie-in edition of the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is not a work derived from the film, but DADoES is of interest (without the overhead of finding and consulting the lk in the film's article) to those who read the tie-in and remember that title better, or would tire of typing the long original title. Some users may also be misled by the false statement that that book is derivative rather than seminal. Both sets of users are entitled to a separate entry, even if the other consolidations are an improvement.--Jerzy•t 22:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Redlinks should usually not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information. 
The 6 months of silence on the subject at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), since that language was added, do a fair job of showing a consensus for it, despite the brief discussion of it (and is the Wikilinking section implicitly part of it?). But the word "usually" means the provision is not definitive, and much more important is the long run: the provision is not about adequately edited Dabs, but about Dabs' temporary states until such entries can either be replaced by single-(blue-)lk ones, or be discarded bcz their topics deserve no respective articles. I'll be starting a Cleanup for red-link dab entries page to draw attention to the entries, like these, that need one of those actions. --Jerzy•t 17:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dab Entries 

message: :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.
*Oppose Neutral No reason to believe that Oscar Pistorius is the primary topic.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *I now properly understand the intent, so I won't oppose, but as noted by PamD the end result with have little practical difference.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey