Talk:Barack

Barack Obama: The Novel
Barack Obama: The Novel should not have been deleted as a link. The person deleting it claimed that it was not the purpose of this page - but it is. It is a disambiguation page. Where else would it be listed? The person also deleted the entire article on the book claiming it was a hoax, even though the book is available for purchase. Both should be added back by someone. 209.178.210.100 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Being available for purchase does not equate to significant or notable. KDS 4444  Talk   21:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, do you mean the book published by Blend Publishing, the same organization of which the author of the novel, J.M. Dunne, is president? And that does not have an ISBN?  KDS 4444  Talk   05:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Avoid double redirects
For some reason, people keep replacing double redirects on this article. I really can't fathom the MOS stuff they are quoting, but I'm sure that the MOS does not intend to violate the long-standing policy of avoiding double redirects see Double redirects.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are misunderstanding what double-redirects are. These are all simple redirects. 01:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We link to the target article NOT to a redirect page. Why on earth would we link to a redirect page? If you don't like the format then use piping - don't link to a redirect page. This makes no sense.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See Disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 01:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It makes sense in two ways: first use of the word dismbiguation in the title (of the redirect) makes it clear that the reader is going to a dab page and also so that in the future when (if) a primary meaning comes along and the dab page needs to be retitled as on the redirect page, changes to other pages will not be needed. Also it is recommended by mos:dab ... and what harm can it do? Abtract (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That page is nonsense and not what we have ever done. It needs changing, because it is not in line with practice.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That page has been around a lot longer than you have been editing. If you think the practice needs to be changed, I suggest that you bring it up on the discussion page. older ≠ wiser 01:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No No No. The practice is that we don't link to redirects. Guidelines are supposed to reflect practice not dictate it. The guideline is simply wrong. How long I've been editing is beside the point, but you've obviously researched it, and badly, since I've been here since early 2005.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the disambiguation guideline does represent widespread practice on disambiguation pages (which are not articles and are subject to somewhat different standards than might be applied to articles). However long you may have been editing here (your edit history only dates to early 2008 and I missed the note mentioned you previously edited as User:Doc glasgow), your presumption regarding what is or is not wrong or what is or is not current practice regarding disambiguation pages is mistaken. And even for article, there is no actual guideline to NOT link through a redirect. In fact the relevant guidance for redirects is Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. older ≠ wiser 02:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Reidrect discussion
Redirects to Barack Obama? As much as America loves its president, that is idiotic. Tabarnaco (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Tabarnaco

seconded. This is a very common given name. That such an idiosyncratic redirect should be fully protected is also rather irritating. --dab (𒁳) 08:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm fine with it being something other than a redirect to Barack Obama, though I don't know how that decision was arrived at. Would the suggestion be to have Barack go to Barack (given name), or to Barack (disambiguation)? This may have been discussed before somewhere. Also I think the only reason the redirect was protected was because it's an obvious vandalism target. No matter what we end up doing with it the odds are good that keeping it protected makes sense. Dbachmann I would suggest maybe posting a note about this issue at Talk:Barack Obama and Talk:Barack (given name), since conversations about what to do with Barack may have previously happened at one or both of those places. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree (strongly) with Bigtimepeace. This article should not redirect to Barack Obama, but rather to a DAB page that list Obama as one of the possible meanings. LotLE × talk  09:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since there are only two other articles on Wikipedia with the name "Barack", both infinitely less significant than Barack Obama, I recommend restoring the redirect to Barack Obama. The only significant people with Wikipedia articles and a name etymologically linked to 'Barack' are known primarily by spellings other than Barack (excepting Obama's own father, who is in any case linked to in Obama's article..), so the overwhelming majority of people who do a search for "Barack" will be looking for the U.S. president (just like the overwhelming majority of searches for Reagan go to the article that redirect points to, Ronald Reagan, even though Reagan (disambiguation) lists sixteen different articles instead of just 3). Besides which, once Barack redirects back to Barack Obama, everyone will immediately see it at the top of the Barack Obama article (either linked as Barack (disambiguation), or, considering that there are only two other articles on this page, perhaps instead linked to the most common (and most similar) alternative spelling of the name, Barak (disambiguation), which will make all those other "Bara(c)ks" much more prominent and easily found, not less. :) -Silence (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose redirect. Barack Obama is certainly a far more popular article, which is precisely why we don't want an unnecessary DAB for its first line. Those occasional readers who only search on his first name will have no trouble clicking the link, but we should not make the other (less widely read) uses buried excessively to no good purpose.  LotLE × talk  23:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Silence makes a good point, and one that I had been unaware of.  I had not known of the template to put two DAB links on one line.  Since we are going to have one DAB line at the top of Barack Obama anyway, putting two links there would not be notably "noisier".  LotLE × talk  18:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Only one article would be any more "buried" under my suggestion than it currently is: Barack (brandy). Which... is a one-line stub. And the trade-off for this is that one of Wikipedia's most important politician articles, Barack Obama, will be less buried (by what is probably the 3rd-most common search term for him). No other article than these 2, the brandy and the politician, will be substantially affected. And the effect to Obama's readers will be uniformly beneficial: We already have a dab at the top of Barack Obama (linking to Obama (disambiguation)), and we have the technology to include two dab links on one line. The wikicode is . It looks like this:


 * -Silence (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize that this talk page has been dead for three years now, but I have just changed the redirect to send readers to Barak (given name) instead of Barack Obama. I have generated an article for the given name "Barak" which contains a link to the Obama article but which discusses the Arabic and Hebrew origins of the name and provides citations for the same. This seems like the appropriate direction to take things, given the discussion above and the creation of the new article. KDS 4444  Talk   21:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The redirect is questionable
I doubt that ANYONE that is typing Barack is looking after that. Besides that the given name is less associated to it, Obama is easier to remember, spell and type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.182.102 (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when do you redirect a given name to a person? --Bone1234 (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. KDS 4444  Talk   21:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, there are a few. Britney to Britney Spears, for example (thought i fought against that).  Napoleon used to redirect to Napoleon I before we wised up and moved the article to simply Napoleon.  Also, Calpernia used to redirect to Calpernia Addams because her name was spelled a little bit differently than the mythology that she named herself after. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2020
}} JohnTim29 (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)