Talk:John McMullen (engineer)

Requested 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: not moved. There is a clear consensus that the engineer is not the primary topic. However, a clearer disambiguation may be need for this article, so feel free to open a new requested move about that if you wish, or move it yourself if uncontroversial (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

---

John McMullen (engineer) → John McMullen – over dab page, in accordance with the primary topic guideline. Hatnote here has already been put in place.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Note the page view statistics (as of 00:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)):

• John_McMullen_(bishop) has been viewed 82 times in the last 30 days.
• John_McMullen_(broadcaster) has been viewed 139 times in the last 30 days.
• John_McMullen_(engineer) has been viewed 634 times in the last 30 days

Discussion

• Oppose It should be at John J. McMullen, since his firm is called JJMA, so it is likely he is known as JJM. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  I thought about that, and it's not a bad point but... most of his many mentions in the media refer to him simply as John McMullen (or Dr. McMullen). I don't dispute that he has a middle name and uses an initial, but it's rarely used.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as this person is not significantly more notable than the others. Tassedethe (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  Can you actually show that to be the case, or is this just... obstinacy? Are the page views meaningless, or the thousands of press clippings? I'm willing to be convinced, but this isn't very convincing. I wouldn't even call it an argument, without any evidence to back the position up.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  Your page stats do the convincing for me. The ratio of his page views to all the other people (including the missing John K. McMullen)) don't convince me that people are expecting to find this particular John McMullen. Tassedethe (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  So, basically, it's my opinion against... well, three of ya. Great. OK, back to just worrying about content, then. I'll just have to come up with a better disambiguator, I guess (using "engineer" for Dr. McMullen here is terrible). *scratches head* Oh, and since you brought it up, I assume that you're going to take care of adding John K. McMullen to the dab page? Happy editing.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Primary topic must be clear. In this instance it isn't. None of them are desperately notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 23 May 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.

Three knee-jerk "opposes" hardly shows "clear consensus", especially when the votes so obviously ignore the evidence presented, but whatever.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John McMullen (engineer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915040338/http://devils.nhl.com/team/imo.htm to http://devils.nhl.com/team/imo.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061129190857/http://www.newjerseydevils.com/2005/html/history/stanleycup/names/images/1600/1995.jpg to http://www.newjerseydevils.com/2005/html/history/stanleycup/names/images/1600/1995.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)