Misplaced Pages

Talk:JCP: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:48, 16 February 2012 editCallmederek (talk | contribs)345 edits Requested move← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:18, 1 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,094 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{DisambigProject}}
{{WikiProject Disambiguation}}
{{WikiProject_Java|class=Disambig}} {{WikiProject_Java}}
}}


== Requested move == == Requested move ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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: '''not moved'''. ] (]) 13:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
{{Requested move/dated|JCP (disambiguation)}}

----


] → {{no redirect|1=JCP (disambiguation)}} – ] → {{no redirect|1=JCP (disambiguation)}} –
Line 32: Line 38:
*'''Oppose''' No evidence of primacy per ]. ] (]) 22:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' No evidence of primacy per ]. ] (]) 22:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ], ], and others. ] (]) 21:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' per ], ], and others. ] (]) 21:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
*:'''Comment'''. ] means that in deletion discussions, Keep/Delete per other users is not a good argument. If it's not a good argument for deletion, then "Oppose per others" is not a good vote on requested moves either. ] (]) 21:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
*::There's nothing wrong with endorsing other editors' opinions, especially when those opinions need no further elaboration. By the way, it kinda looks bad that you've replied to other people without responding to my points above. ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 16:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
*:::I sometimes don't know what to say in response to points people make. The most realistic question is: Are there plenty of businesses whose names are '''partially''' absent from their logos?? For example, Misplaced Pages would qualify for this if its official logo just said WP. ] (]) 17:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::A few points. ] actually redirects to ], which has a hatnote for ], so extrapolation from that particular arena to this move discussion should not be presumed. Also, it's worth noting that even there, editors are cautioned, "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." As to the general path of the dispute here, I would suggest that advocacy for the primacy of ] among the various meanings of ] is moot while that article doesn't even occupy the ''JCP'' namespace, as indicated by the initial response to this proposal, and arguments towards that end are fundamentally impaired here as a result. In anticipation of that discussion, I would suggest noting ], which describes why "official" names are ''not'' the presumed title for articles. ] (]) 18:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
*::::], ], ]... ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 19:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. A logo is not a name. ] (]) 00:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

Latest revision as of 06:18, 1 February 2024

This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation
WikiProject iconJava
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Java, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Java on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JavaWikipedia:WikiProject JavaTemplate:WikiProject JavaJava

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


JCPJCP (disambiguation)

JCPenney needs to be moved to JCP. The logo suggests that the company is now known as JCP. (Note: people who remember it from before 2012 will always remember it as JCPenney, but this is merely one's memory of the past.) Georgia guy (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A few points. Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid actually redirects to Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, which has a hatnote for Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions, so extrapolation from that particular arena to this move discussion should not be presumed. Also, it's worth noting that even there, editors are cautioned, "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." As to the general path of the dispute here, I would suggest that advocacy for the primacy of J.C. Penney among the various meanings of JCP is moot while that article doesn't even occupy the JCP namespace, as indicated by the initial response to this proposal, and arguments towards that end are fundamentally impaired here as a result. In anticipation of that discussion, I would suggest noting WP:OFFICIALNAME, which describes why "official" names are not the presumed title for articles. ENeville (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Categories: