Talk:Deathly Hallows

Direct
It may very well be the case that the fandom likes to abbreviate Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows to "Deathly Hallows" tout suite. The people who are looking for "deathly hallows", however, are looking for the objects and that is what should lead the dab page. — Llywelyn II   02:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is that we already have Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire, and Half-Blood Prince. In fact I would argue that Chamber of Secrets needs to be fixed. So we are in need of consistency here and those edits did not help. Elizium23 (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * [To finish the replies I was in the middle of as you started complaining: Those have no bearing. There is no "consistency": redirects are controlled by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The primary topic of Deathly Hallows is the objects themselves, not the shorthand titles; the others, on the other hand, do have the shorthand titles as their primary topics.]
 * Also, I don't think that linking to HP7 as a pipe is very helpful. "HP7" seems to be something that could easily change in the foreseeable future. Elizium23 (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * [I would beg to differ, given the immense popularity of the books, and it's certainly not a bad redirect as your edit comments claimed, but you're welcome to use the full title Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows instead.]
 * Finally, it is extremely rude of you to revert my reverts violating WP:BRD for this wide-spread change. You should achieve WP:CONSENSUS first. Elizium23 (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no WP:CONSENSUS here. You made a series of widespread reverts without attempting to talk to me or establishing that the book is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Your edit comments were completely off-topic. Sorry I didn't check this talk page first, but WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the standard for redirects, not a "consensus" of one person. — Llywelyn II   23:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is correct, you have no consensus and no mandate to make these changes. The cycle of BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS continues after a BOLD edit (yours) with one and only one REVERT (mine) before DISCUSSION is begun (your turn.) I continued the discussion here and you ignored it to start an edit-war. Elizium23 (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to go back and review WP:GOODFAITH, kid. I'm not here starting an edit war; you (unlike me) had no good arguments whatsoever for your edits, so I fixed them.


 * That said, I will go try to dig up some data to better establish the proper primarytopic and then we'll finish this conversation. But "consistency" between redirects is a complete non-issue. — Llywelyn II   23:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Do me a favor and do not continue this conversation if you intend to keep patronizing me. Elizium23 (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Avoiding getting patronizing responses is precisely why civil tones are so important. In any case, I'll keep up my end of the conversation until we've worked this out. You're welcome to provide better support for your ideas or (better still) agree with mine, though. [Sadly, upon research, I no longer agree with my original idea. See below.] — Llywelyn II   00:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

PRIMARYTOPIC
Obviously, what's going on here is that there are two fairly primary senses: one, the objects in the world and, two, the fandom's shorthand for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The previous position of the page redirected solely to the book and is completely unsupportable: people looking for the book may use it but those looking for more information on the objects themselves must use it. My own thought was that the objects themselves are the unquestionable WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name space and a hatnote could quickly point those looking for the book or movies where they wanted to go. For instance, vanilla Google for the term has the objects as all of the first 12 entries and 15 or 16 of the top 20 and Google Images is almost entirely devoted to the symbol and neither the book nor the movies.

I do have to admit, however, that Google Books returns far more even results: 16 or so for the book, 15 or so for the objects, and 3 for the movie in the first 40 results. The shorthand is just shorthand, but it is common enough to function as a second. Therefore, per WP:2DABS, we should be pointing this redirect at Deathly Hallows (disambiguation) with the objects and book as the first and second entries. This will also help those looking for the movies, although that usage doesn't show up as often in the literary commentary at Books.

Some other shorthand (e.g., HP7) should be used to point at the books within Wikipedia itself or the shorthand should be replaced with the full title: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or Deathly Hallows. — Llywelyn II   00:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:2DABS does not say the base name should redirect to the disambiguation page. There are more than two topics on the dab page, so WP:2DABS does not apply. If there is a primary topic, Deathly Hallows can redirect to it. If there is not, the disambiguation page needs to be moved to the base name. See WP:MALPLACED. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. The dab should be moved, not badly rewritten to pretend there is a single PRIMARYTOPIC. — Llywelyn II   14:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit war
Obviously, no desire to edit war here & will stop before 3, but you're simply copying Elizium above and going a bit heavy on the rule lawyering. Kindly present SOME evidence that my points and research above are WRONG, rather than simply reverting upon no grounds whatsoever. We're trying to improve content, not win personal contests. If I'm wrong (as shown above), I'll gladly go where the new evidence points us. — Llywelyn II   14:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's obvious you do desire to edit war here. Your change is controversial. Kindly allow the move request to complete, and re-re-read WP:MALPLACED. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * has no relevance here and the conversation about the change of the redirect is going on above us, not at the move request. I am stopping now that the reverts have continued, but again you continue to provide no actual support for the current placement of the page and just fall back on empty procedure. We're here to improve things, not just fight with people we happen to dislike.


 * Do you have any evidence that the book is a solid at all? Kindly provide it. —  Llywelyn II   09:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the edit summaries, this section is precisely about you. Do not change my topic heading and provide your own new topic if you wish to not comment here. Better still, provide some evidence to support your opposition to the RM proposal at the other page or here. — Llywelyn II   04:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, this isn't about me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)