Talk:Jim Hopper (Stranger Things)

Requested move 16 July 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved per original proposal. Although counterarguments are made that nothing is broken here, those are just "weak" opposes and the support argument is that the proposed title ensures consistency per the NCTV guideline. The additional proposal to make this the primary topic did not find consensus. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Jim Hopper (character) → Jim Hopper (Stranger Things) – Correct disambiguation per WP:NCTV. Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Primefac (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943  (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. (Changed to "weak" since my stance has softened on this. Steel1943  (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC) ) Besides many sections of WP:NCTV currently being under dispute, using the name of the television show instead of just "character" in the disambiguation, to me, has always seemed like a form of unnecessary disambiguation (see R from unnecessary disambiguation) if there is not more than one existing "character" subject on Wikipedia to disambiguation against.  Steel1943  (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (Changed to "weak oppose" since I've come to the conclusion that both sides have a valid "WP:CONSISTENCY" argument/point.) Steel1943  (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to point that the above is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument combined with two fallacies. There is only one part of NCTV that is under dispute, as can be seen on that page, and it has nothing to do with how character names are named. It is also not a "R from unnecessary disambiguation" as both use 1 qualifier, you just don't like one of them. Also, just to add to that, you cite a redirect which has no real basis in any guideline (as anyone can create any redirect without any discussion), yet ignore the guideline itself. And finally, would like to add that WP:CONSISTENCY with other topics - both most TV- and film-related articles that use this type of disambiguation, but also with the only other Stranger Things character, Eleven (Stranger Things), which was created long before this one. Seriously, opposing a technical move, just because you don't agree with a guideline (yet never even brought it up on the talk page to try and change it) is a real ugly move. --Gonnym (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument from me. Try "comparing two established guidelines". My argument is that the proposed move fails WP:PRECISE (which is a policy basis for R from unnecessary disambiguation) since the subject "character of this series" is a more WP:PRECISE disambiguator than "character". Compare to: Villanelle (character), Terminator (character), SpongeBob SquarePants (character), Max Headroom (character), Creed Bratton (character), David Dunn (character), etc. (So, there's my take on WP:CONSISTENCY.)  Steel1943  (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding "There is only one part of NCTV that is under dispute, as can be seen on that page, and it has nothing to do with how character names are named" So, I was mistaken when I saw the Disputed tag template at Naming conventions (television) ... which has been there since 14 May 2019? Steel1943  (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. As pointed out by Steel1943, there is inconsistency in the parenthetical qualifiers used in disambiguation of fictional characters. Some main title headers delineating characters simply use the qualifier "(character)" without regard to the source, whether it is literature, film, television, video game, etc. However, a glance at Category:Male characters in television will confirm that, as of this writing, only 17 are indicated as "(character)", while scores of others are specified as to their origin. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 12:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES (no good reason to change) since the current title does the job, but so would the proposed title. However, I would support a primary topic swap with the current use of Jim Hopper by an obscure barely notable baseball player who was pro for one season in 1946. This lead character of a top TV series is far more prominent and will remain so for the foreseeable future. --В²C ☎ 20:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How does a newly created article fit an article title has been stable for a long time? Also, how isn't following WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:NCTV not a good reason? Very bewildering. --Gonnym (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't think I needed to repeat the point above that the relevant section of NCTV is under dispute. CONSISTENCY is a stronger argument. Whether it's strong enough to be a "good reason" per TITLECHANGES is a matter of opinion. I dunno. My shoulders keep shrugging. As to "has been stable"... I don't think that means a relatively new article doesn't require a "good reason" to change its title. --В²C ☎ 22:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – "(character)" would make sense for a character known across a lot of different media, but that is not the case here: this character is known only for the Stranger Things television program. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Primary topic swap per . No disambiguator needed, this is the primary topic. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Related nomination
A nomination aimed at moving Jim Hopper to Jim Hopper (baseball) and at redirecting Jim Hopper to the James Hopper disambiguation page has been proposed at Talk:Jim Hopper. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Parameters
Those parameters only exists because of a merge with another infobox, the majority of infoboxes I've seen doesn't use them. They just take up more unnecessary space. The Optimistic One (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Are we short on space and wasn't told? If that is the issue, get rid of Male which the doc says The gender of the character. Use only if not obvious. or Diane (divorced), a character with zero relevance to the show. The granular parameters allow for a consistent style for the "first" field. Just look at Category:Articles using Infobox character with multiple unlabeled fields and see what a mess that is, and that is after I've spent hours cleaning hundred others and converting them from the lblx/datax parameters to the actual ones used in the infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with your argument concerning the gender part. But why have the shows title included in the first appearance when it's the only one that the character is in? It's just unnecessary, we also don't nedd the full date either. The Optimistic One (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As you can see from the infobox below, the parametres being used at the moment doesn't suit, takes up more space, and contains unnecessary information. I prefer the older parametre very much. The Optimistic One (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello joyce
Joyce not TODAY! 78.19.99.80 (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)