User talk:Michael P. Barnett/draft

Move?[edit]

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 —innotata 18:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michael P. Barnett/draft → The Professor and the Madman —

this is the title of the US edition of a book that is important enough to have a Wikipedia page with the title of the UK edition The Surgeon of Crowthorne. I thought that if the UK edition has a page with its title, the US edition would be allowed corresponding treatment Michael P. Barnett (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason for this. The US title already redirects to the book's article, which has the alternative title in the first paragraph. Jafeluv (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary, we don't need two articles on the same subject. Author is British so page should remain a redirect. Rehevkor ✉ 00:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree. I was seeking symmetry, but replication has many disadvantages. So I will not try to incorporate a "Professor and Madman" page that has any content. However, I do not think my tentative effort was a "redirect" in the strict sense of using #Redirect: which I did for the existing article titled "Ministry of Pensions" a few days ago. Would respondents accept a "Professor and Madman" page that is a "redirect" in this sense. Having such a page would save the time, eye strain and mental effort of a user who did a Google search on "Professor and Madman". If the searcher wants the relevant Wikipedia article returned by use of this key, the searcher has to direct his/her gaze down the Google results screen, until he/she finds the word "Wikipedia" embedded in a line that begins "The Surgeon of Crowthorne", and then read the sentence in the next line to realize the relevance. I have spent a large amount of time literature searching over the past 70 years and I want to streamline the search process as much as possible. I think that an entry for "Professor and Madman" that was a redirect in the #Redirect: sense would save 20 seconds (of someone who works at my speed and, consequently, with whom I empathize -- 100 such savings mounts up to half an hour). Would the respondents object to this? As regards redundancy, having spent many hours looking at Wikipedia articles over the past few days, I am appalled, and I would like to know the mechanism for suggesting consolidations. For example, should there be separate entries for the locations Carleton (where I once lived, hence my interest) and the neighbouring Cleveleys, Poulton-le-Fylde, and Thornton in Lancashire, England, or would it be better to consolidate these within a single article called Fylde, with #Redirects. Another example: the entries for the advertizing agency Doyle Dane Bernbach and for James Doyle, Maxwell Dane and Bill Bernbach, are all very thin. Should these be consolidated under the company name? (A friend who worked with and wrote books about them asked me to edit two of the pages) Michael P. Barnett (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my request for the move. It was based on a misunderstanding. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.