Talk:George Goodman

Copy vio? -- and unrelated matters
Why is this page the same as http://experts.about.com/e/g/ge/george_goodman.htm? 132.238.22.240 01:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

An answer, expansion, and more sources
To answer the above question, this Wiki article probably pre-dates the above page. In other words, the above page took its information from the Wiki article. On another subject, I have expanded this article and cites more sources (including George Goodman's homepage). Take care. ProfessorPaul (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename
I've heard the name "George Goodman" more than once, but never remembered it; if i tried to, i'd fail by coming up with the memorable George Gordon; i think of him as "Adam Smith, not the real one". At the very least, we need the Rdr i just created, Adam Smith (modern), so that editors in the know can code that lk and use the pop-up tools to see the existing article name and copy-and-paste it in place of the Rdr title. (At present they have to actually open a tab or window displaying Adam Smith to even see its Hatnote Dab, and then link further to display in the window with Dab's contents (since the pop-up tool doesn't "see" GG's entry, following the first line of the Dab.) (Yes, this could be considered a change-request for the Pop-up tools. But:) So i'd like to hear why George Goodman shouldn't be renamed to Adam Smith (modern): AFAI can see, he'd be at Adam Smyth if he'd chosen been given that pseudonym instead, and the only reason he's not is that only one of them can be at Adam Smith. Adam Smith (modern) isn't as pretty as George Goodman, but handsome is as handsome does, no? (I don't consider this crucial, but it strengthens the case, IMO: He intended to have the connection between the two names remain secret, and was apparently royally pissed when a reporter acquaintance "outed" him -- a tale that IMO should be at least lk'd to in the article.) --Jerzy•t 18:29 & 18:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What would be the point? People trying to find this article would still have to start with Adam Smith, and go on from there. But I put a link at the top, so this is only one click away.
 * —WWoods (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason is UCN, and i presume its point is principle of least astonishment. --Jerzy•t 07:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If "Adam Smith" were available for the name of this article, that would apply, but it isn't. The lead sentence tells people they've come to the right place ("... best known by his pseudonym Adam Smith ..."). No one's going to try to find this article by typing "Adam Smith (modern)" in a search box. There are no links to that, while there are half a dozen to George Goodman.
 * —WWoods (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We should do nothing to accommodate those who are foolish enuf to try and guess the Dab'd title, but having the name GG at the top of the article is fairly astonishing, and uncomfortable.
 * The idea that UCN goes out the window when Dab'g starts is utterly new to me, and far fetched.
 * The what-lks evidence is of no value per se, bcz there are bots that prowl around, bypassing Rdrs by converting Rdr refs to article refs. It's probably worthless even if you were to trace the histories of each of those lks, to see what they originally were: it's hard to imagine an editor who uses Pop-up Tools and doesn't, e.g., code Adam Smith in the edit window and view the lk to see if it's a Rdr or Dab, then find the article title, and code that (but then, editors' behavior astonishes me every day -- already today, for instance). --Jerzy•t 17:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)