Talk:People (disambiguation)

People (disambiguation)

Whar about peoples from the movie Shaft (2000 film)
Lee

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

No consensus to move. The previous version of the article is restored. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

People (disambiguation) → People – People was just an overly-verbose disambiguation page with no primary content. It now redirects here; better would be if this was simply there instead. Pfhorrest (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment the page existed a few days ago, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People&oldid=465050885 , People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ; 76.65.128.198 (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• comment "People" as an article, was rated as high-importance by WP:WikiProject Anthropology, so I informed them of the matter. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment "People" was nominated for deletion previously, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People , and was kept. This requested move seems to circumvent AfD in getting rid of it? Shouldn't this be handled via AfD, since you're going to have to delete the edit history to move this page ? 76.65.128.198 (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • There is precedent for doing so, see Talk:Chaos. What should happen is that if this RM results in consensus to move the article currently at People should be moved to Talk:People/Old version (or similar). Jenks24 (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Move I proposed the move; apologies if it wasn't done properly procedurally, and thanks for the link to the old AfD. My complaint about it was that it was just dictionary content plus a glorified disambiguation page. (Interestingly, that AfD seems to have been prompted by an earlier complaint that it was just dictionary content, and ended with a proposal to turn it into a ""fancy" disambiguation page", their words). My understanding is that dictionary content and verbose disambiguation are both unencyclopedic, so making it a proper disambiguation page would be the solution; but a proper disambiguation page already exists, so a move seemed in order. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

The page "People" seems to be a vandal magnet, every third edit, since its creation, seems to be a vandal edit. Since "People (disambiguation)" used to sit at "People", before it was moved to make way for the current "People", in 2005, also attracted a lot of vandalism in 2005... so the title "People" is a vandal magnet, and has been since December 2004... Wouldn't it be better to protect the redirect "People" and keep the disambiguation page here? (or will vandals not notice that this isn't the page called "People" ? ) 76.65.128.198 (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is not a reason to leave a page at a bad title. Just semi-protect if necessary. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Primary topic styling

Several recent edits ([1] [2] [3] [4]) have concerned styling of the lede of this of this disambiguation page.

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Linking_to_a_primary_topic indicates that if there is a primary topic for a disambiguated term, the first line of the article should briefly direct users to that primary topic page, before introducing a disambiguating list. I am the one who first introduced the "People is the plural of person" phrasing as the primary-topic line (here), as I am elsewhere advocating that People should be a simple redirect to Person, or preferably that this dab page should be moved to that title, and then link to Person as the primary topic.

I introduced that change at the same time as redirecting People to here. However, that redirect has since been reverted, and for the time being the article at People is about "coherent social or ethnic groups" or the like. Thus at present, that is the primary topic for the term "People" on Wikipedia, and the lede of this article should read as in this revision. It is ironic that people are reverting my reversion of a change I myself originally instantiated; I am simply undoing myself here for consistency with having been undone elsewhere. I would like very much for the first line of this article to read "People is the plural of person" and be done with it, but for the time people that is not Wikipedia's primary topic for the term "People", and this dab page should reflect that until the situation changed. --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not lead that concerned me. I edited so that both "People, the plural of "person" and "a People, a coherent social group" be be included and not conflated, but clearly separated. That's all I care about. Chose a lead and style as you wish, but please keep them separate and include both. Chrisrus (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)