Talk:Nth Man

Move?

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved Nth Man (comics) → Nth Man JHunterJ (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Nth Man → Nth Man (comics) —

• The generic title should be about the Marvel Comics character, since the only other link on the disambiguation page is for Nth Man: The Ultimate Ninja. The disambiguation page should then be moved to Nth Man (comics). Fortdj33 (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No, if the DAB is to move it should be simply to Nth Man (disambiguation). But with only two entries, do we need a DAB at all? Won't a hatnote be enough? See WP:TWODABS. Andrewa (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support what I think was the intended proposal - move Nth Man (comics) to Nth Man. And as Andrew says, no need for a dab page - just put a hatnote up.--Kotniski (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that according to WP:2DAB, this type of disambiguation page is unnecessary, since neither one of the articles is the primary topic. The recommended practice in these situations, is to place a hatnote on both articles, each one directing people to the other article. However, if Nth Man (comics) is to still be used as a search term, then I think that the disambiguation information should be contained there. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

But above you seem to claim that there is a primary topic. If neither is the primary topic, then and only then would there be a case for having a two-way DAB at the undisambiguated name. If there is a primary topic, then the two-way DAB is harmless but unnecessary, and should go to at Whatever (disambiguation) if it exists. Andrewa (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The question, I think, is what to do with the legacy search term "Nth Man (comics)". Since, after the move, the only reason for its continued existence would be to keep existing links working, I think it should continue to point to the same article that it used to refer to (if it didn't to that, it would be better to just delete it).--Kotniski (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There are several relevant questions. The first is whether or not there is a primary meaning for Nth Man. Perhaps the zeroeth question, considering the strange logic above, is: Do we all understand what this means? Andrewa (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to understand it fully (for example, I can't tell if one topic is a derivative of the other), but (a) clearly the present title is perhaps wrong (if disambiguation is needed, then (comics) is clearly perhaps insufficient, since both topics relate to comics); (b) there doesn't seem to be any opposition to the proposal that the original Nth Man become the primary topic. So to avoid needlessly prolonging discussion on a trivial and uncontroversial matter, I suggest we close this, delete the dab page at Nth Man, move Nth Man (comics) to Nth Man, and apply an appropriate hatnote mentioning the other Nth Man topic. Any objections? --Kotniski (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This move was proposed in the first place, because the set index at Nth Man really belongs at Nth Man (comics). Therefore, as pointed out above, I think that we should swap the two, and move Nth Man (comics) to Nth Man. This would make Nth Man (comics) the disambiguation page, which I understand is probably not even necessary, but is more in line with WP:SIA, since it contains the ambiguous word in the title. Once the change is made, any links to the the disambiguation page can be fixed, and hatnotes can be placed on the other two articles. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't really make sense to me - "Nth Man (comics)" is if anything more precise than "Nth Man", so if either of them is to be the title of a dab page, it should be the plain Nth Man. But I don't see any need for a dab page or set index page when we have only two topics and one of them can happily be regarded as the primary one.--Kotniski (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kotniski and Andrewa. I don't see the point of having a faux disambiguation page masquerading as a set index. As a side rant, many so-called set indices for comics should really be redirects to the disambiguation page and tagged with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. older ≠ wiser 17:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see why Nth Man belongs at Nth Man (comics) any more than Green Lantern belongs at Green Lantern (comics). If the comic book character meaning is the clear primary meaning, no disambiguator is needed, and a hatnote will suffice to address a single other meaning. bd2412 T 17:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose mainly to make progress towards a formal resolution of this RM. We have made no progress towards deciding whether or not there is a primary meaning, and seem to be talking in circles and/or about irrelevant personal theories about what Wikipedia naming conventions should be, expressed using unhelpful new terminology. I'm sorry of that seems harsh but I think we have been patient enough. IMO the naming conventions are quite clear, relevant and logical, particularly WP:DAB, MOS:DAB and more specifically WP:TWODABS and WP:2DAB. Let's not reinvent the wheel here. Andrewa (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.