Talk:Blood Work (film)

Suggest rename to Blood Work (film)

"Blood Work" should be a disambiguation page, with links to the novel by Michael Connelly, to this film, and to the medical usage (Blood test).

It is unfortunate that this article is simply "Blood Work" when the novel came first.

I'll try to do it tomorrow, unless someone objects. --RenniePet 17:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The order of the works doesn't dictate their location; that has to do with the relative significance of the works. Links to this page overwhelmingly are meant for the film. Dekimasuよ! 13:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "Links to this page overwhelmingly are meant for the film." I was, of course, prepared to re-link all the incorrect links. I had, in fact, all the relevant pages open in IE in preparation for creating the disambiguation page, and relinking and modifying the primary pages, and then when that was in place I'd have worked my way through all of the "what links here" pages. It sure doesn't help one's motivation when an attempt to improve Wikipedia gets sabotaged.

Maybe you mean searches for "blood work" are mostly for the film. That may or may not be true, and I don't think it justifies the film hogging the main page name.

Currently the film page has a disambig link to the medical treatment, but not to the book. And the medical treatment page has disambig links to the film and an obscure rock song (with incorrect linkage - the band does have a page here), and no link to the book. It's not systematic or correct. --RenniePet 14:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to add another dablink for the book. I recognize that you're willing to pipe the existing links, but their makeup does imply that searches are for the film. Newly created wikilinks will also likely be meant to link to the film. We optimize for usability - when the reader types something in the search box, they should be sent where they want to go. That's the rationale behind WP:UCN and WP:DAB#Primary topic.

Anyway, I was writing out my objection to your move when you moved the page. I was surprised to be redirected to Blood Work (film) when I hit enter. We're in the WP:BRD cycle, but I'm sorry you felt that I was sabotaging your work. This discussion would probably benefit from outside opinions. Dekimasuよ! 14:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a nerd, and to a nerd it makes much more sense that an ambiguous search (or link) results in the user being made aware that the search was ambiguous, and presented with the relevant possibilities to choose among. It may be true that most searches are for the film (the world sometimes strikes me as becoming more and more illiterate), but even taking that into account I think the proper response is to make the user become aware that there is also a book (you know, one of those things that you have to read). After all, he/she is still only one click away from the page he/she wants, and may even be glad to have been made aware of the existance of the book.

More opinions would be nice. --RenniePet 15:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just did a very quick check on "What links here". 59 links for the film and 26 for the book. A large number (29, I think) of the links to the film are due to it being in the "Films directed by Clint Eastwood" template. If we neglect that template the links to the book and film are almost 50-50. And there is also the consideration to those who are looking for the medical treatment... --RenniePet 20:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

More than 75% of those links to the book are due to it being in Template:Michael Connelly Bibliography. Dekimasuよ! 01:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support a rename and creation of a dab page at blood work or Blood Work (with one redirecting to the other) per arguments above. — AjaxSmack 06:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support move and making "blood work" a dab page for the the medical treatment, the book, the punk song, and of course, Blood work (film)--victor falk 14:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Here I was, sitting around wondering when one could consider that "consensus" was OK, and User:Stormtracker94 came and did a hit-and-run move! Not good, in my opinion. No disambig page, no fixing up of links among the directly affected pages, no fixing of all the links that pointed at this page. (And this guy has applied to be a Wikipedia administrator, twice!)

I think I've done what's necessary. Interestingly, three of the links to the film page turned out to be incorrect, they should have pointed at the novel. On the other hand, I admit that Dekimasu had a very good point regarding the number of links to the novel that were due to a template. --RenniePet 00:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too disappointed in the result. Thanks for fixing the links. Dekimasuよ! 13:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bloodworkposter.jpg

Image:Bloodworkposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)