Talk:Hans Dieter Betz

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: page moved.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Nominator's reasoning is entirely convincing. Ucucha 21:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - resulting page names are far too similar, as a result causes more problems than it solves. Suddenly, lots of links need repointing, editors are likely to get confused when making new links, and readers are made to do extra work unnecessarily. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resulting page names are far too similar" - this will be addressed by hatnotes.
  • "lots of links will need repointing" - only three articles link to Hans Dieter Betz; I checked them, and all three links point to a Biblical scholar and not a physicist.
  • "editors are likely to get confused when making new links" - I would expect our editors to be more intelligent. They will presumably use the name of the individual they're referring to, thus creating a correct link to either Hans Dieter or Hans-Dieter. If not, it'll be corrected.
  • "readers are made to do extra work unnecessarily" - how so? Ucucha 22:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "resulting page names are too similar" is generally considered to be not fixable with hatnotes - we don't use different page titles separated only by casing, diacritics, etc. so I see no reason why this shouldn't apply to two articles that would be separated only by a hyphen. It would be easy for someone to mistakenly link to one when they meant the other, mainly through not knowing the other exists - I don't really see this as indicating a lack of intelligence. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. No links will need to be fixed; all are currently correct. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah! I see you have noted this above, Ucucha. Also, I do not see how it is fair that one man gets to have his own name but not the other, when they do not share a name (

  WP:QUALIFIER = parentheses are a last resort). — the Man in Question (in question) 00:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  As far as the language is concerned, the names are identical. I also don't see where it says parentheses are a last resort. It remains the case that we will end up with two otherwise-identical titles, whose only difference is a hyphen instead of a space. This to me, and I suspect to many others, is as unacceptable as two articles whose titles differ only in the casing of one letter. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The alternative would be (I suspect) to have a dab page at Hans Dieter Betz that points to both articles. However, I don't see why that would be more desirable than hatnotes, since it would require all people who want to read on either man to click again before reaching that article. When we have both articles at the actual names, with a hatnote to the other, fewer than half of the people would presumably need to click again, since they are probably more likely to use the spelling that is correct for the Betz they are looking for. Ucucha 19:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem to be assuming that the current situation is somehow broken. You also seem to be assuming that parenthetical dab tags are primarily a technical measure. Dab pages, tags, and hatnotes, exist to help the readers find the right article. It might be better to move the other guy to add a tag - random visitors when know exactly where they're going before they get here, since someone looking at a search results page saying "physicist" and "religion scholar" gets to the right article straight away. But, either way, the names are too similar and therefore they cannot both be head articles. In fact, if you scroll up a little when you get to

  WP:QUALIFIER, there's something that says almost exactly this ("B. G." vs. "B.G."). 81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

The current situation has

Hans Dieter Betz (religion scholar) and Hans-Dieter Betz

on the physicist at that location. Yes, I do think that situation is broken. I do not see where my second assumption comes in, although it may be relevant to the MiQ's comments. The guideline you cite actually says:

For example, B. G. James the politician and B.G. James the wrestler need explicit disambiguation (for example by a top of the page disambiguation notice on both pages, or a disambiguation page): "implicit" disambiguation by using one format of the abbreviation for the one, and another abbreviation format for the "B" and "G" initials for the other is not sufficient.

The MiQ and I are proposing the first alternative here; I explained in my previous post why it is preferable over the second. Ucucha 19:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP, the section to which I referred (

WP:QUALIFIER) says "try to avoid this type of disambiguation where possible". Here it is possible. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support. Given that the hyphen-less name currently redirects to this article, I see no reason that the article should not be titled just with the name. In general I reckon dab pages where there are only a couple of alternatives are not very useful - you inconvenience a large proportion of people wanting to view one of the articles, without giving benefit to everyone else. The exception to this would be where one of the articles is large and affects download time. I would support a better hatnote though. (Something like this article is about the religious scholar, for the physicist see
  talk) 17:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per Quantpole's pointing out that the new suggested title already redirects here anyway. Propaniac (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]