Talk:Bruce Weber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.


There was no need for the page move with only two persons by this name. The photographer has the largest number of pages directed so it makes sense at this point to at least redirect to that page which still has the pointer to the coaches page. Too many changes of link have been made to make it worth my time. If someone else wants to move the photographer back and change all the links that's fine. Doc 02:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As long as Bruce Weber redirects to Bruce Weber (photographer) then there's no need to change links from [[Bruce Weber]] to [[Bruce Weber (photographer)|Bruce Weber]]. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. - Sweetie Petie 09:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved all redirects to the intended page. FancyPants 19:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your moves, but the photographer is still the one that most folks will look for. Just as Byron redirects to Lord Byron not the DAB page, this should still IMO be the redirect. If you still feel otherwise, please discuss here first. Thanks. Doctalk 21:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I had a chance to read the Photographers site and there is no doubt he is notable within his discipline. But the Coach I must add is an elite collegiate coach at the highest level of American collegiate play. I counted the number of links to the photographer (57), the coach, (23) and the administrator (6). I don't consider that an overwelming amount, especially considering that most of the links are coming from a very specific group of articles, namely models. A notable Photographer is certainly going to work with a greater number of notable models than a basketball coach would notable basketball players, as the time commitment is different. Google search does show more sites devoted to the photographer, but the 2nd link is the coach, but I think this may have to do with the fact that the the eroticness of the photographer's art lends its self to the Internet tastes. I would have to say more than 25% of people, probably around 1/3 would be looking for the coach. I think that it would be agreed that both articles are in need of work, and neither would generally be considered "house hold names". FancyPants 23:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Frankly I'd never heard of the coach and the several other persons that had earlier discussion had not either where even persons from Europe are many of them familiar with the photographer. My personal view is that the photographer crosses more groups of persons that may have knowledge of him where the coach is not, from what I have found, known outside of sports followers. Functionally, the coach is very easily found by the link at the top of the photographers page, were someone really looking for him. My familiarity with this pattern was over the Byron redirect when I was writing articles on three US representatives with the last name of Byron and initially thought that the DAB page should be at Byron. The position there was what was the most common use of the average person looking for an article. It seems to me that the same principle applies here, but I am certainly open to further discussion. Doctalk 01:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requested moves[edit]

  • There has been an edit war a few months ago about which Bruce Weber, if any, is the primary topic. Something should be moved to "Bruce Weber", but it could be any of four pages. Moved to controversial. --Stemonitis 07:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
If there is an edit war, and 4 possible uses, wouldn't the best solution be to make Bruce Weber the disambig page? TJ Spyke 08:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
That was one of the four uses: that, and each of the three disambiguated articles. --Stemonitis 09:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
So, is there a reason why the primary page isn't the disambiguation page? That makes the most unbiased sense to me. Anybody mind if I change it? --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)