Talk:Egon Mayer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move 14 January 2017

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.

No consensus to move. bd2412 T 02:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Egon Mayer → Egon Mayer (pilot) – To make room for a disambiguation page; please see Egon Mayer (sociologist) K.e.coffman (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Is that really necessary per WP:2DABS? —Srnec (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It also states that "In other words, where no topic is primary, the disambiguation page is placed at the base name". I don't see this topic being primary. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly the longer and more detailed article. It is also older (2007 vs 2012). In other words, absent evidence, why should anyone believe the sociologist equally primary given our coverage? Srnec (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

De.wiki has a disambig page: link, and the two articles are about the same size. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• To be clear, I oppose this move until our article on the sociologist approaches or exceeds our article on the pilot in length and pageviews. Srnec (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support no evidence that the pilot passes either of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC tests. And both balanced based on Google Books In ictu oculi (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TWODABS. Well over 90% of readers last year wanted this article.[1] The handful who wind up on this page wanting the sociologist can click on the hatnote as easily as they could on a dab page. Station1 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2017 (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.

Gerhard von Seemen

I removed the citations to Seemen, plls see diff. It's a dated, less than RS source; in any case, two remaining sources are plenty for material that's unlikely to be challenged.

Specific on Seemen, pleas see this 2013 discussion: Recent deletions of unreliable sources.

K.e.coffman (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Translations

I have questions about this edit: Restore reviewed version. In my understanding, the fact that the article has been reviewed does not preclude further improvements to it, or taking note that the acceptable practices may have changed in the interim.

• Translations -- what purpose do they serve in the context of the article?
• Italics: please see Luftwaffe; no italics are being used.

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Since no meaningful objection has been offered, I reinstated the edit; pls see diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit on 3 April 2017

I streamlined the lead by removing blow-by-blow statistics, level of detail unneeded in the lead, over-linking, and excessive foreign language terms. I am preserving the material here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Rsjhnson.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)