Talk:Quantum Leap
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] redirect
The second purpose of the original WP:RM was to have this redirect to "Quantum leap" although i probably didn't make it too clear. What do other people think? Should this be redirected to the tv series or to the type of quantum physics page? Or even disambig? Simply south 17:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think its fine as it is.--Srleffler 19:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Neither. This should be the article on the TV series. Powers T 14:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Either Quantum Leap is ambiguous and shouldn't be redirected automatically or it isn't ambiguous and it should just be the TV show. Redirecting it to quantum leap would consistent with making that article the primary topic for both Quantum Leap and quantum leap.
-
- However, as long as Wikipedia is case sensitive Quantum Leap and quantum leap are different articles that do not necessarily need to be disambiguated from each other. I don't think the original move was wise and had I known about it, I would have opposed it. I have no way to get hard statistics, but judging from the size of the pages (two paragraphs vs. several pages) and the frequency of edits (~50 edits in the last year vs. ~50 edits in the last month), I would guess that Quantum Leap (TV series) is the much more actively searched-for topic.
-
- Also, I find it odd that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) got cited as precedence, but not WP:NC-TV, WP:NC(P), or WP:CAPS, which seem more directly relevant. I have to wonder what information people were using to make their decision with, since there wasn't much debate. Actually, why does Pulp Fiction (film) have a dab tag? Hmm.... -Anþony 12:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I was the closing admin, I guess (because I have this on my watchlist
-
). Yes, you're right, bad citing, but WP:NC-TV says a similar thing, and then goes on to mention King of the Hill (TV series). Go figure. WP:NC(P) is vague as well: "If there is a reasonable chance the reader might have been looking for the other meaning...". With caps in the title, I'd say it's unlikely. The concerns raised here are valid, though; maybe some firmer rules are called for. Duja► 12:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
