Talk:John Sherman (disambiguation)

In evaluating the relative notability of the politician, it would be an error to be swayed by the roughly 175 lks to the politician. It must be noted that his name appears in 3 very widely used templates. --Jerzy•t 01:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it'd be nice if you fixed those three templates rather than just noting it here (and that's not to mention all the several dozen other links that are not related to the templates). older ≠ wiser 01:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have a clear opinion that the templates are bad (which i do not), you may want to consider whether your interest in the topic makes whatever "fix" you were contemplating a good project for you. AFAI am concerned, your deciding it's not is quite nice enuf. --Jerzy•t 06:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, I didn't say the templates were "bad"--only that you broke them when you moved the page and did not fix the templates to link to the correct person. That is just common courtesy when moving a page and has nothing to do with one's level of interest in a topic. older ≠ wiser 13:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

_ _ While it's tempting to detail your original and subsequent rudenesses, and fault your logic, in this discussion which is off-topic on this page, i expect no reply to the following and you should expect none if you do reply. _ _ Lks to rdrs do not break pages, and i don't need help with my attention to fixing double rdrs that i create. The "code of honor" is IMO tolerated only bcz Snapping single rdrs is so low-priority and such a good bot task that IMO most editors should not waste time on it -- tho it is their own business if they want to. --Jerzy•t 19:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) it is useful for editors who don't have any ideas about what to do next, and
 * 2) it carefully avoids being confused with a policy and doesn't call itself a guideline.


 * Hmmm. I had thought you were a fairly reasonable contributor. However, it appears you may have tipped over to the dark side. You are quite correct that linking through a single redirect is not a problem. However, that is not what I was complaining about. The links to this page are NOT to a redirect, they are to a disambiguation page. Perhaps this difference is not obvious to you. A redirect occurs automatically. By merely moving this page and not fixing the links still pointing to it, you demonstrate a lack of consideration for the readers. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Period. older ≠ wiser 19:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

disambig
It seems to be that one of these Shermans, the Senator, is far more well-known than the others. I think "John Sherman" ought to direct to his article, with this one being moved to "John Sherman (disambiguation)". Anyone have any thoughts on this idea? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In December 2011 the page views were:
 * John Sherman (Ohio): 1791
 * John Sherman (minister): 0
 * John Sherman (cricketer): 67
 * John Sherman (climber): 257

It seems clear that the Senator is the John Sherman most people are looking for. I'm not sure anyone watches this page, but since there's been no response in three months, I'm going to go ahead with the move. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move

 * 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: moved, uncontested. Favonian (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

– As I stated on the talk page above, the Senator is far more well-known and gets far more page views. Coemgenus (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * John Sherman → John Sherman (disambiguation)
 * John Sherman (Ohio) → John Sherman
 * 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.