Talk:Roy Hoffman

Requested 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

– Neither of these people need disambiguation: their names are different. Each article could usefully have a hatnote linking to the other as an easily-confused name, but they do not need to have disambiguation. The Hoffmann (admiral) article needs to be moved back to its original base-name title (now occupied by an unnecessary dab page created today by the editor who moved the admiral and created the writer's article), the Hoffman article needs to be moved to the base-name title currently occupied by a redirect to the Hoffmann spelling (ie the dab page, today). There are several incoming links, currently pointing to the disambiguation page, most or all of which are intended for the admiral. I can't claim this to be an uncontroversial set of moves, as the person whose work I propose undoing presumably thinks their way is better. Pam D  16:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Roy Hoffman (writer) → Roy Hoffman
 * Roy Hoffmann (admiral) → Roy Hoffmann
 * Entirely sensible. No protest from me, I clearly had a brain fart. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Just because the names are similar is no reason to disambiguate, but agree with adding the relevant hatnote to each article. Zarcadia (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the disambiguation page should be moved to Roy Hofman or Roy Hofmann, since there will be mispellings, and the mispelled name cannot be routed to accurately to either person. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I believe we should leave them where they are. The spellings are similar enough for there to be confusion, so 'Roy Hoffman' and 'Roy Hoffman' should be disambiguation pages for the two and for each other (maybe one as a redirect), as is the WP convention. --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 02:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Hatnotes will handle disambiguation perfectly sufficiently. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Hatnotes and redirects will do. bd2412  T 12:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Hatnotes are fine, just like in the articles Christian Clark and Christian Clarke. – anemone projectors – 12:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Hatnotes are sufficient. As usual in such two dab cases, if other similarly named individuals later have articles, a disambiguation page may be helpful. older ≠ wiser 12:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. No need to add clarification. A hatnote is sufficient for anyone who misspells the name. Apteva (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Precisely the kind of case distinguish exists to cover. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. "Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail," per WP:PRECISION. Kauffner (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2013 (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.

Expanded and wikified.

 * The article has been expanded and wikified, more any other day.I have done my best.Justice007 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)