Talk:Cowman
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
DAB[edit]
I've reverted the two-way DAB consisting only of redlinks.
If these articles are created and a DAB becomes necessary, then the DAB should include a reference to Otis the Cow's alter ego Cowman, who appears in several episodes of Back at the Barnyard. Andrewa (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Both redlinks already have incoming links, so already a disambiguation page is called for. I made the disambiguation page at Cowman based on my review of its incoming links. No primary topic. Also, the name pair is similar to Cooper (profession) and Cooper (surname). 69.3.72.9 (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wrong on all counts IMO. For example, just because you've created incoming links doesn't make an article necessary. I guess we'll end up with a redir from cowman (profession) to cowboy. Interested to see how your request at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cowman (surname) gets on. Andrewa (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cowman (profession). 69.3.72.9 (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wrong on all counts IMO. For example, just because you've created incoming links doesn't make an article necessary. I guess we'll end up with a redir from cowman (profession) to cowboy. Interested to see how your request at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cowman (surname) gets on. Andrewa (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Entries[edit]
Why are these entries being deleted? 69.3.72.9 (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Cowman, Otis the Cow's alter ego in several episodes of Back at the Barnyard
- Cowman Publishing Company, publisher of Richard C. Halverson
- No mention of Cowman on Otis the Cow's target, Barnyard (film). No encyclopedia mention of Cowman on Richard C. Halverson (only appears in a citation). If there are no ambiguous encyclopedia entries, they don't need to be disambiguated. If encyclopedia coverage of those topics is created, after that they should be added to the disambiguation page. Otherwise we're just sending readers to articles with no information on the topic they are seeking. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Reverts are easy, aren't they? But reverts like this do not build
WiktionaryWikipedia. I fixed the redirect Otis the Cow and added a sentence to Richard C. Halverson making the connection to the publisher. Is all well now? 69.3.72.9 (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)- Passive-aggressiveness doesn't build Wiktionary either. Or Wikipedia. Disambiguation pages are for resolving current ambiguity in Wikipedia, not for promoting growth. Do you have a source for the statement "many of his books were published by Cowman"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- JHunterJ, I agree that passive aggression doesn't belong here, but how is that relevant? Is that some kind of crack at me? I disagree with your opinion that "disambiguation pages are ... not for promoting growth," especially where redlinks have incoming links. Re sources, the publisher is identified in the man's books and you can look them up on Worldcat. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't a crack, it was a response to "Reverts are easy, aren't they?". Reverts are easy, and sometimes they're appropriate, as in this case. The purpose of disambiguation pages isn't my opinion, though, it's the disambiguation guidelines. Adding citations to distinguish content from original research is also a guideline. See WP:D, WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:OR. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- JHunterJ, Wikipedia:Reverting says "if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it". To improve unsatisfactory edits on Cowman I have created several new articles and added content and sources to several others. Although I am glad to discover your concerns and resolve them, I find your manner of communicating them rather disruptive. I have now added a list of Halverson's books published by Cowman; is that satisfactory to you? If not, what is lacking? 69.3.72.9 (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't a crack, it was a response to "Reverts are easy, aren't they?". Reverts are easy, and sometimes they're appropriate, as in this case. The purpose of disambiguation pages isn't my opinion, though, it's the disambiguation guidelines. Adding citations to distinguish content from original research is also a guideline. See WP:D, WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:OR. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- JHunterJ, I agree that passive aggression doesn't belong here, but how is that relevant? Is that some kind of crack at me? I disagree with your opinion that "disambiguation pages are ... not for promoting growth," especially where redlinks have incoming links. Re sources, the publisher is identified in the man's books and you can look them up on Worldcat. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Passive-aggressiveness doesn't build Wiktionary either. Or Wikipedia. Disambiguation pages are for resolving current ambiguity in Wikipedia, not for promoting growth. Do you have a source for the statement "many of his books were published by Cowman"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Reverts are easy, aren't they? But reverts like this do not build
Note that this IP has also accused me of disruptive behaviour, see User talk:Andrewa#Rollback abuse?, an attempt at Gaming the system IMO. Sadly, we may soon be at RFC. Andrewa (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, 69.3.72.9 has now accused myself and User:Cgoodwin of meatpuppetry related to this editor's proposal to make changes to Stockman. (Cg and I have known each other on wiki for several years, an alliance is hardly meatpuppetry) The same person is also trying to redirect several occupational articles to the cowman (profession) article, even professions that don't call themselves "cowmen." This appears to be an experienced user who is choosing to use an anon IP for some reason. Montanabw(talk) 02:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)