Talk:Henry van Rensselaer (disambiguation)

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.


I tried finding in the MOS where it says that an editor can choose a favorite entry on a DAB list and make it bold with a claim that it is "priority"... Keeping in mind An article is using the namespace that should be a DAB page. According to MOS it is best to avoid the (disambiguation) when (as in this case) obvious rationale can not be established to set one over another. The object is to make it easy for a researcher to find whichever article they are looking for.JGVR (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements

JGVR (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)JGVR (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic. So long as Henry van Rensselaer redirects to Henry Bell Van Rensselaer, that is the primary topic. If you think this is incorrect, you can propose to move Henry van Rensselaer (disambiguation) to Henry van Rensselaer at WP:RM. olderwiser 20:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
And the part that says a name can be chosen and set aside and in bold is .... WHERE??? I will agree with the move suggestion, BUT you did not show me anything that says this is correct set aside a similar item (such as just another of the same NAME) as "primary"JGVR (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Please show me where it says that how you just did it is PROPER You will not find it.JGVR (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Um, you have actually looked at WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic right? When the ambiguous term has a primary topic but that article has a different title (so that the term is the title of a redirect), the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article. By that guidance, the opening line of Henry van Rensselaer (disambiguation) should be

Henry van Rensselaer (1810–1864) was a US representative from New York and Union Army general.

Henry van Rensselaer may also refer to:

. . .

However, the next guidance suggests In some cases it may be clearer to link directly to the redirect target, which results in the following for this page.

Henry Bell Van Rensselaer (1810–1864) was a US representative from New York and Union Army general.

Henry van Rensselaer may also refer to:

. . .

Regards, olderwiser 20:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Both Henry van Rensselaer and Henry van Rensselaer are both Redirects. Gee whiz I wonder why? OH thats right I made an article and named it Henry van Rensselaer in an UNTAKEN namespace where Henry Bell Van Rensselaer has its OWN NAMESPACE - been that name for EONS - and no reason anyone could get confused - suddenly because there is a Henry van Rensselaer. Why Am I the one stuck having to beg to make it correct?? look at the histories. JGVR (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
If you really get bored you can look and see how another editor was griping about me naming it between Henry and Hendrick making me switch it around.21:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)JGVR (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
BTW you did a fine job showing me what you think it ought to look like but you did not show me that MOS, a section that demonstrates names that are the same should show any "Primary" indication?

Think John Paul Jones an obvious DAB namespace and people arguing over their favorite. Please try againJGVR (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)JGVR (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

(after ec)I don;t understand what your confusion is. You say Both Henry van Rensselaer and Henry van Rensselaer are both Redirects -- but these are both the same redirect. Did you mean to put something else there? But in any case, this is the disambiguation page for "Henry van Rensselaer", so the existence of the redirect to the article with a different name indicates that page is the primary topic for the name. olderwiser 21:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I see my error, That should have read:

|Both Henry van Rensselaer and Henry Van Rensselaer An editor has serious issues with my use of the proper lower case v so there have been several issues on several articles over that...JGVR (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, but that doesn't really make any difference in this case. Both variations are essentially equivalent in terms of usage in the English language. olderwiser 22:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request ( discussion attempt in after several reverts ):
Based on the MOS found here, and given that none of the articles' subjects full names do not exactly match the title of this disambiguation page, it is my opinion that no article should be displayed as bold, and all should be listed as shown at the MOS page. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
That does not make any sense on a page with "(disambiguation)" in the title as that by definition means either 1) there is a primary topic or 2) that the disambiguation page is not correctly titled. For 1), the name of the primary topic should be bolded. If 2 is the case, then a move should be proposed and discussed to determine if there is consensus that the disambiguation page is indeed misplaced. olderwiser 22:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Use WP:RM to move this page to the base name (either base name) if there is consensus to change to no primary topic. --JHunterJ (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    I am sorry it got this messy but there is an editor chasing my heels when I use a proper "v" instead of "V" and their insatiable desire to change namespaces over what THEY say is "no big deal" that said :
    Henry van Rensselaer should redirect to Henry Van Rensselaer which should be the DAB page, rendering both Henry van Rensselaer (disambiguation) and Henry Van Rensselaer (disambiguation) into redirects to Henry Van Rensselaer (or deleted) There is also an issue with nearly every article or page containing an "H and Van Rensselaer seems to have to direct to Henry Bell Van Rensselaer for some odd reason....JGVR (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC) JGVR (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    Next step would be to follow WP:RM to move the disambiguation page to Henry Van Rensselaer. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    actually the next step should be undoing the Bold listing that is inconsistent with MOSJGVR (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    The bold listing of the primary topic, or a page to which the dab page name redirects, is required per WP:MOSDAB. "Primary topic" does not mean that there is anything special about this person. It means that the article (or redirect) has the same name as the dab page, nothing else. Although there is no reason to change anything, a move of any page can always be requested. Please be aware that wherever the sources spell "Van" capitalized, your personal preference can not supersede the sources, see WP:OR. Kraxler (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    So when you see Henry Van Rensselaer it means Henry Bell Van Rensselaer? as was apparent when you hounded me into changing the name. BTW where do you find this about "what the source says" as opposed to the actual spelling?? what monkey cage do you pull this from where we should mis-spell a name because that is what the source uses??JGVR (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's not forget there is the issue of either your misunderstanding or being obtuse regarding two easy to understand for the average person in 3.13 & 3.14 AND here Dutch_surname#Surnames and here Van (Dutch)(minding we should not use WP:OS and blindly assume any name is anglicized simply because it is misspelled. You did know that is a Dutch name right? after all it meant "nothing" on Jeremias van Rensselaer you made not one single edit to the progenitor of ALL with that surname. It is not original research when someone can find very easily that name is Dutch ...JGVR (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Jeremias only had two sons that had children - both born in Albany (I thought you knew about New York) This is one of the sons Hendrick van Rensselaer which AGAIN you never saw a need to make any changes to the caps! ODD? no but, it is odd (or creepy), you seem to have found so much interest on articles that I named...JGVR (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I quote from WP:Verifiability: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." After your one-week-block you have been rather quiet for a week, and now you start being disruptive again. Your memory seems to be short. Kraxler (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I will dumb it down for you a bit. The most reliable source is the progenitor (Where did they get the name?) get it?
The more appropriate place would be to continue
Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Dutch_and_German_surnames_van_.26_von If there are any meaningful comments to be made....JGVR (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Remain civil. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Really? you are grasping at straws now honestly think people are going to seriously question the validity of an article based on a lower case "v" in a name? REALLY?...JGVR (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Based on the incorrect rendering of the subject's name, showing disregard for the sources, the reader or reviewer has to presume that the article is made up of doubtful and/or incorrect info, especially WP:Original research. Kraxler (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
But, you are missing the fact that I have been addressing your incorrect rendering of the name since Christmas. The source of these people's names is their progenitor, which has been solidly demonstrated. And as for your references that this name was Anglicized by anyone other than WP:OR, I still long to see.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JGVR (talkcontribs) 18:19, 14 January 2013‎ (UTC)
Does anyone else find it strange that one of the persons that are incorrectly reverting the format of this page is the same person that issued a "final warning" over a one time incident of my getting a bit loose with my descriptions of an editor? I thought Admins are supposed to be uninvolved in a dispute when they issue such warnings...JGVR (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not involved in your personal attacks, no. I did not issue a warning about the issue I'm involved in. To understand the correct formatting of the primary topic of this page:
QED. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
You are forgetting that you reverted the corrections that I made to a DAB that has an assumed "primary position"? Is it typical for decisions on who is primary to be decided by one or two people that desire an article has a particular primary position but have not demonstrated why? ....JGVR (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Use WP:RM to move the dab to the base name to avoid WP:MALPLACED. Please do not pretend you understand my desires. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I've removed the new Third Opinion (3O) request because the request fails to specify a dispute which is substantially different from the previous request on which a 3O was given above. Please bear in mind that 3O's are never binding, but are merely opinions which can be accepted or rejected by any editor. Asking for a second 3O on the same subject matter is inappropriate since it is no longer possible to give a third opinion. If the dispute is not settled, you may move on to a different form of dispute resolution or file a request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)