Talk:Middle man (AIM plugin)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Does this belong here?

I'm unsure as to whether this belongs in Wikipedia (see WP:NOT). Certainly, it's too confusing to remain under this title - it's linked from several places with the assumption that it means something else - namely, that of a salesperson.

I'm going go be bold and move the page to "Middle man (computer program)", and create a disambiguation page in its place. However, since I'm still unsure of whether it belongs here, I'd like to discuss it further here. If anybody has this on their watchlist, please pop in. --Ciaran H 19:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My View

I'm unsure as to what you mean as it relates to if it belongs here. I'm going to assume you mean "should the page exist in any form in the first place". To which I will respond - Based on other related items (see Aimutation, DeadAIM etc) it does belong.

However based on your argument that the page is linked to by people talking about a sales person - Well I see your point.

My (biased) view is that the program should get the lead position. After all shouldn't "middle man" (the person) be in a dictionary (which wikipedia has a sister site) over a encylopedia? --Anthony 00:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Follow Up

As there has been no reply (by the orginal person or otherwise) in what I can only assume to be enough time for a reply I have gone ahead and changed it back (although I'm sure I did it in a incorrect manner, however I'm not sure how to remove a disambiguation page).

Please realize that I am not trying to create any conflict, and my edit is not intended as a hostile action. --Anthony 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologise for not seeing this earlier. I've been rather sporadic at Wikipedia recently - my time is being eaten into by other things.
I do not believe that the program should have the lead position over the phrase "middle man". The phrase is well-known, and, in my opinion, does indeed have a place in the encyclopedia. In any case, even if it's decided that this should have the lead position, there should at the very least be a link to the well-known definition.
With regard to moving pages, you may want to look at meta:Help:Moving_a_page, which shows the steps necessary to move a page. Moving a page in this way preserves the history, making it more useful in the long run. I certainly don't regard your action as hostile, so don't worry about that.
I would like to mention one thing. Because the content was copied rather than moved, there are now two separate copies of this article - one at Middle man, and the other at Middle man (computer program). It would be best to merge the histories if possible; I'm not sure how to go about doing that. In any case, this should probably be left until this discussion is finished.
I'd love to talk more with you about this. I'll pay more attention to Wikipedia now, so please do reply. Thanks. :) --Ciaran H 00:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I did the history merge from Middle man to here. PhaseDMA, please use Wikipedia:Requested moves in the future. dbenbenn | talk 00:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Second Follow Up

I do agree that the history should be merged, but as you suggested lets wait until a final choice has been made on the fate of this mess.

I would be very open a link to a page about the phrase.

In the end if the program "losses" IMO the title of the page should be "middle_man plugin" as opposed to "middle_man (computer program". The reality is middle_man in the most strict definition really isn't a computer program (you wouldn't call a plugin for winamp a computer program).

At this point I don't know where to go with this though. I highly doubt either of us are going to change the others view.--Anthony 00:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I think possibly the best idea is to bring it to the Mediation Cabal, which can give informal mediation, which seems to be what we'd want. Would you be okay with me doing this? --Ciaran H 01:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You can go ahead and set that up. It sounds like a good idea to me.

If nothing else you are teaching me a lot about Wikipedia, and although it indirect teaching I do appreciate it either way.

So just give me links to the mediatation page you create and we can go from there :) --Anthony 13:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and made the request. Apparently they're quite backlogged at the moment so it may take some time to get round to it. --Ciaran H 00:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. You put it very well I must add.--Anthony 04:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that we have the response from the Mediation Cabal, I'd like to put forward the proposition that we make the change that was implemented by User:Dbenbenn, which I notice you reverted without even responding to the latest comments on this talk page. It may be true that there's no agreement between everybody, but please remember that no-one owns articles on Wikipedia. If you wish to discuss something, please do so on this page. As it stands, there are probably more people that think "Middle man" should be about the phrase than about the plugin.
Incidentally, by copying the page content again rather than moving the page, you just split it up again into two separate but identical articles. Please use the move function as I described above if you want to move articles, but remember to discuss your changes first. Thanks. --Ciaran H 17:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

My take on this is that "middle man" is a phrase rather than a dictionary definition. I'd advise moving the AIM plugin article as already proposed, and making this page an explanation of the phrase.

As noted, this page has incoming links in the context of the phrase, so it's clear that other editors also feel it should have an entry. It's also important to consider the usability of Wikipedia - we don't want to be confusing readers! Dan100 (Talk) 10:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. What would you suggest that any suffix should be? As mentioned above, middle_man seems to be not a computer program in itself but an AIM plugin. What do you reckon would be the best thing to put? --Ciaran H 18:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
That's a good question; I don't know if there are guidelines on this, but I'd go for something descriptive like "(AIM plugin)". You might want to do a RfC on the question. Dan100 (Talk) 15:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Annoyed

At this point I'm a bit annoyed by this chaos. Actually annoyed is a huge understatement, but to remain civil I'll use that word that describe my mood.

"Middle Man" IS. Not maybe. Not perhaps. It flat out is a word. You want to call it a phrase? That's fine. The same rules apply. A phrase is two words that do not complete a sentence. In the most simple of terms a phrase is...... A word. Pretty simple if you ask me.

As such the word/phase/whatever does NOT under ANY condition (or at least any you have brought up) belong in Wikipedia. Once again this is a fact. Not a question as you wish it was. Now I think I understand why you didn't want a official stance on this matter.

As far as I can tell - You are what I thought you were in the first place. A troll. A troll that doesn't mind using his brain, but a troll non the less.

On the other hand "middle_man" is a program. Programs have a precedence. What is this precedence? The simple fact that when a program is defined in Wikipedia no one complains. Well except for trolls, but this is what trolls do. Cause trouble for no apparent reason - Other then to cause trouble.

Once again to sum up. "Middle man" is a word. Words do not belong in Wikipedia. "middle_man" is on the other hand a program. Programs have track record of belonging in Wikipeida.

I honestly can not make this anymore simple. Go cause trouble somewhere else.

Please and thank you. --69.207.179.179 22:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If you feel I'm a troll, then that's fine. But it's been demonstrated to you (and here I'm assuming you're User:PhaseDMA) that other people in Wikipedia also feel the same way I do. Since this discussion started, you have seen:
These hopefully show that I am not the only one holding the opinion that I do. So far there hasn't been any evidence from your side that this is what people expect to see when they go to the Middle man article.
Wikipedia works by building consensus. So far, the consensus is that the Middle man article should be about the phrase. Please note that we aren't yet discussing the article's existence on Wikipedia; as far as I'm concerned at the moment, the article would still live at middle_man (computer program) or middle_man (AIM plugin) or similar. This is concerning the content of the main article at Middle man.
You evidently don't agree that this is the right thing to do, and that's fine. I've been respecting that, and have been happy to discuss it with you. However, it's obvious that this needs to go higher up the chain. Therefore I will be making a Request for Comment soon, as a form of generating more opinions. After this, a decision will probably need to be made one way or the other. --Ciaran H 23:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I can tell (and I admit I have took no effort to look into it) creating links to things that do not exist on Wikipedia is NOT good practice. As such "what links here" has no bearing what so ever on this page. The page did not exist until you decided to troll around.

Oh and learn some respect. I know exactly what a troll is. If I didn't I wouldn't have called you one thank you very much. Respect goes a long way. I have shown you plenty of respect despite the fact I have at no point agreeded with anything you have said. You on the other hand - I feel have only shown respect when it has been in your best intrest. As such I would conclude you have in effect shown no respect, and as such why in the world should I give two hoots about what you (and you alone) think?

Should I even get into how short your "article" is? Isn't that something that is not appreciated on Wikipeida also? Come on. As far as I'm concerned that's about as much BS as your "middle man" is a phrase, but hey. I'll fight fire with fire if that's what you want. Of course we all know that the article about "middle_man" is both larger - and will have much more activity then a "article" about a phrase that is linked from some tiny pages across Wikipedia. Ya the program is only linked to from one article, but I'm sure we would both agree on with one gets more clicks. Once again displaying why the program should be the predominant article.

Then we of course have the "duh factor" in it all. Anyone with half a brain I should hope would be able to figure out what a middle man is out of context. Of course that may be putting too much hope in people. Alright enough with the sarcastic attitude.

I suppose it all comes down to the "why"?

Why did you create the article that you did.

Why did I do it?

Well I know why I did it. As far as you? I just can not get past (or at least for very long) thinking you did it to cause a argument (troll).

Then there is this Dan person. Big deal. If you want to get into a match of who can find the most friends (no I'm not trying to say you actually have ever encountered this person before)... Sure... That's cool. But that's not what you want to do.

Bottom line is - As far as I can tell both the policies of Wikipedia and just common sense say I'm right. No serious. Both do. The only thing you have managed to show in support of your argument is a few links that until you created the page went to a place they never visited (I should hope you wouldn't link to a place on your website just because a friend said it was cool - To a less extreme this is the same thing) and then your nice little WP:NOT - But seeing as I can both counter that argument, and then throw it right back at you.... I just don't see it being a valid point.

I guess the bottom line is your going to try and get a couple of people to define the policies of Wikipedia... When the policies are already created - And spelled out quite clearly.

Clearly my patience has expired, and as such perhaps my responce has a bit of heat attached. And for this I am sorry - But honest to god I feel like I'm being backed into a corner. Sure the reality is I suppose this doesn't matter one bit, however I have never ever been one to back down from what I think is right no matter how small... Of course I afford people the chance to prove me wrong - But I have already given you plenty of time to do such.--Anthony 02:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The usual thing for pages with titles that have more than one meaning is for the most commonly used to have the primary page. If they are of similar importance or if the most common meaning does not deserve a full article, then the disambiguation page should be at the primary page. In my opinion, the latter applies here. The most common meaning, the one that I would say most people are likely to think of when they hear "middle man", is the business meaning. This probably doesn’t deserve a full article of its own, but does deserve to be on a disambiguation page. So the page middle man should be the disambiguation page, with a link to middle man (computer program).
The key thing here is not to surprise the reader. For most people, unless they are specifically interested in computers, the computer program being at the primary page would be a surprise – it's just not what you would think of for that title. If you were to do this the other way, you would have to delink every instance of "middle man" that links to the primary page – and they would have to be cleared periodically. A reader shouldn’t be put in the position of clicking the link and being sent to an article for a secondary meaning (if there were an article on the business meaning of the word, the links could be redirected to there. But in the situation here, I don't think that the best solution)
I can see this discussion has got heated, and I realise that my opinion may not be welcome to all. But, Anthony, please do have a look at my user page and contributions before thinking that I am trolling. This is my honest opinion based on my experience of editing here.
sannse (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No I do not think your trolling, and infact fully agree with you. The word does not deserve a full article, and not enough people are intrested in the computer program. As such your right... The page should be a road map to other places. It shouldn't however be a place for either article.

This however is if the word even belongs here in the first place - Which I continue to strongly argue that it does not. As such I of course am in the position that the computer program deserves the sole article, however it's not worth anyones time to do battle over ever single detail so I would be more then happy to use the disambiguation page. Of course the way you explain it this is the way it should be anyways.

Also just to note. One way or the other (for better or worse) I'm not very intrested in # contributions. Or rather to make it more clear "everyone was new once" (so of course it helps, but it shouldn't make or break a person).--Anthony 19:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this makes sense. How would something like User:Ciaran_H/Middle man look to you? Obviously the AIM plugin page would be moved to include "(AIM plugin)" instead of "(computer program)" as it is now. --Ciaran H 07:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Run with it :)--Anthony 02:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me too -- sannse (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Middle man (computer program) → Middle man (AIM plugin) – {Duplicate pages, requires history merge by admin} copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

[edit] Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support Following this move, this second move is required. Requires admin --Lox (t,c) 11:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This is needed so that there aren't duplicate pages. --Ciaran H 19:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Comment Please see this discussion for more information --Lox (t,c) 11:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. —Nightstallion (?) 08:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] i must say

this is possibly the dumbest argument in the history of wiki. the two words don't even have the same spelling "middleman" (it's a compound word, not two words) vs. "middle_man" Bueller 007 22:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] website

their website appears to be down. is this permanent or temporary? I cant find any substitute

[edit] New Website

The new website is http://www.mymiddleman.com

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/d/Talk%7EMiddle_man_%28AIM_plugin%29_bef5.html"