This disambiguation 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.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
Hello, Paradoctor, I have recently noticed your change to John Wayne (disambiguation) in which you removed John Wayne Gacy. You cited your reason as "Not commonly referred to in the literature as "John Wayne"", but what literature is the one you are referring to here and what is he referred to as? What is/are your source(s)? I am interested in seeing a piece of literature in which he is referred to as something other than John Wayne Gacy, since I have yet to see that in my reading of serial killers. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BurgeoningContracting: When discussing edits to an article, please do comment on the article's talk, not the editor's talk.
referred to as something other than John Wayne Gacy I didn't say he was called anything other than "John Wayne Gacy" or just "Gacy".
I used the qualifier "commonly" because even if there were sporadic uses of "John Wayne" to refer to Gacy, they wouldn't justify an entry here. Paradoctor (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point of view, however, it cannot be discounted that the name of the article is John Wayne Gacy (WP:TITLEPTM). MOS:DAB states that people of the corresponding name are recommended to be listed in a disambiguation page with their name. I believe it would not harm to list him. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Try WP:PTM: a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion between them, is considered a partial title match, and should not be included
That something "should also be considered" does not mean it should be used, but that it should not rejected merely because it normally is not used. Well, it has been considered, and it has been rejected. You already admitted that there is no risk of confusion: I have yet to see that. Paradoctor (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure when I stated that, but sure. I guess it can be in the See Also section then. Thanks for the clarification. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never assume you have consensus. Not before other contributors had an opportunity to comment. I waited two weeks for a comment from you, you can wait twenty minutes.
No, it doesn't belong into See also, and for the same reason.
Not sure when I stated that Uh, I directly quoted you. Even if you have forgotten, you're capable of rereading your own comments, aren't you? Paradoctor (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't what your first two lines here are about, and yes, I can read my own comments. I have read the WP:PTM and I still don't understand what you are trying to get at here, though. I don't know what literature or sources you referred to when determining John Wayne Gacy is not significant enough for John Wayne Gacy to be confused with John Wayne. Is the green text supposed to be quoting me? Or some other page? Regardless, I won't edit war over it. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
green text Yes, it highlights direct quotes, see {{Talk quote inline}}.
I don't know what literature or sources you referred to I didn't refer to any specific texts, I said that there is no literature that uses "John Wayne" to mean "John Wayne Gacy". Either his full name or his last name is used. Which you confirmed from your own experience when you said I have yet to see that in my reading of serial killers.
Thanks for clarifying. I don't understand that last WP policy article, however. Is this your own personal stance on something? Why is it in the form of a WP policy article? BurgeoningContracting (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that last one is not policy. It is not even on Wikipedia. Sorry for the confusion.
You missed the box at the top saying This contains material intended to be humorous. It should not be taken seriously or literally. ;) The essay is hosted on Meta-Wiki, not Wikipedia itself. I'm not sure, but I think it started life here, though.
I linked to it because I know it can be difficult to accept that editing has to stop while discussion is underway. A giggle here and there can help smooth the waves, YMMV. Paradoctor (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
