Talk:McCain

Untitled

Does anyone else think this should redirect to the presidential candidate, with a link at the top of that article to the disambig page? It seems far, far more likely to me that someone searching for "McCain" would be looking for the guy who's in the American news media every day than any of these other targets.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Propaniac (talk • contribs) 16:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Gee Emm Christlur undid that change, and I concur: users looking for John McCain are more likely to use "John McCain", and those that enter just the surname can find him easily enough. -- JHunterJ 11:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and have redone the change. There was a similar debate over at Talk:Obama. The last name should redirect to the overwhelming most common usage. Nearly everyone who types in McCain will be looking for John McCain. —Lowellian (reply) 19:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case, yes, though I worry a bit about the reference in the first comment to the American news media. Wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia, and should not become one. It is international. 86.132.140.45 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

don't redirect

I typed in McCain looking for the huge Canadian potato company. I would have been suprized and confused if it redirected to some American politician. If he becomes president, then the redirect makes sense, because it's international. Until then it's too USA-centric.--Sonjaaa (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sonjaa, I disagree with what you wrote about the redirect. I agree with Propaniac, Lowellian, and 86.132.140.45 [1] who say that “McCain” should redirect to John McCain. Enigmaman agrees with them too.[2]

You have been working to remove the redirect for a couple days now, and yet you have not visited McCain Foods Limited, according to your contribution history.[3] Isn't that site the one you said you've been trying to find?[4]Ferrylodge (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah McCain, you've done it again. Yes, the globally recognized and half a century old company was the one I was looking for. I really was surprised to see that I was redirected to some politician who to be honest I have never heard of. I understand that American admins do feel that English Wikipedia is actually American Wikipedia, but they are wrong. It is English language Wikipedia for the entire world, not just one country. I strongly oppose this redirect, and I propose that the original McCain article be restored before admin Lowellian moved it. JayKeaton (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of ethocentricism, it's a matter of convenience. The John McCain article has been viewed 311,507 times this month, and McCain Foods Limited has been viewed 1,929 times this month.[5] Likewise in January (before "McCain" redirected to "John McCain"), the John McCain article was viewed 929,544 times, and McCain Foods Limited was viewed 2,143 times. So, someone who types "McCain" is redirected to the John McCain article, and informed how they can also find other uses. The same thing is occurring at the Barack Obama article; "Barack" as well as "Obama" redirect to that article. May I ask why you find this kind of thing inappropriate?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason that Madonna the singer has 314,983 views this month and Madonna the Christian icon only has 12,739 views and the Madonna disembag is still maintained, and the Bush disembag is still maintained, and the Clinton disembag is still maintained, and Simpson. All of these stick to formal encyclopedia guidelines, why should McCain be any different? The Simpsons got over 200,000 views this month, but Simpson (surname) got less than 500. Should Simpson then redirect to The Simpsons? Should McDonald redirect to McDonald's? Why is McCain any different? JayKeaton (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Jay, what is the formal encyclopedia guideline to which you are referring? And why are you worked up about McCain and not Obama or Reagan?

The John McCain article seems to be getting more than a hundred times more people looking for it than any other McCain-related article. You cited several examples, such as Madonna. For some reason there are separate articles for Mary (mother of Jesus) and Blessed Virgin Mary; combined they got about 10% of the hits that Madonna (entertainer) got this month. Likewise, Laura Bush got about 10% of the hits that George W. Bush got this month. Hillary Clinton got about half the hits that Bill Clinton did this month. Homer Simpson got about 20% of the hits that The Simpsons got this month. And, Ronald McDonald got more than 20% of the hits that McDonald's got this month. So, McCain seems to be in a different category.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

can we move this exclusively to John McCain, or move that exclusively here? All this double posting is a bit of a mind freak. JayKeaton (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How about if we leave this stuff as-is, and continue the discussion at John McCain?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

fo sho JayKeaton (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Pleased

I'm pleased that this was turned into a disambig page again at some stage. I was annoyed when I belatedly found this had been turned into a redirect, without apparent proper discussion but decided given McCain's candidacy at the time it was best to let it slide. I was planning to come back to ask for it to be changed back but see it's already been done Nil Einne (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)