Talk:PJ

Inclusion criteria
I was coming on here to ask about people specifically, as there are a lot of people who go by the first name initials PJ (just type PJ A, etc. into the search box), enough to warrant say PJ (name), but it is unclear why some of those on the page are here. Ia, for example, Peter Jackson, often refereed to as PJ? There is no mention of it on his article, which surely must be a minimum requirement - we can't possibly list all the people whose initials happen to be P and J.

Which raises the large issue - are some of the other entries in here because they merely have the initials P and J, they are not referred to as PJ?

The companies look solid (Peach John uses a lower case pj as their logo) but the Punjab, India? It might be there is some kind of regional code (for numberplates perhaps) but if so it'd need explaining.

Also why is Percy Jackson and the Olympians linked? I see no evidence that the main character is called PJ but, even if he was, we already have a link to the characters page: Percy Jackson.

Basically, the page is a mess - it doesn't include a lot of articles that would seem to be legitimate for putting on here or a sub-page, and the reason for including more than half of the current entries is mysterious at best. I'd suggest a clean-up is in order - perhaps remove everything that doesn't seem to fit and put it here, if someone can explain why it should be on the list then we can put it back.

Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC))


 * See also: JP, which does try to explain the inclusion of some of entries but then some seem to be in purely because they are two words starting with J and P - Jurassic Park, for example. (Emperor (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC))
 * I agree that unless it can be demonstrated that a person is known by their initials, they should not be included on the page. This page is to help people find the meaning they were actually looking for. bd2412  T 19:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see there has already been a clean-up, if people are wondering what was removed then the previous version is here, if the inclusion can be justified here then add it back in, but make it clear why or it will get removed again. (Emperor (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC))