Talk:Hitler (disambiguation)

Hitler (disambiguation)

A while back someone had the brilliant idea of changing Hitler from a redirect to a disambiguation page, because, let's face it, when someone mentions "Hitler" it's not quite clear who they're talking about. I moved this to Hitler (disambiguation) and restored the redirect, but now we have this orphan, which seems just useless. Everyone on this page (except Adolf Lu Hitler Marak, who probably doesn't even belong) is already on the Adolf Hitler page. Even a disambig notice at the top of Adolf's page seemed stupid, so this has been sitting here, basically unsearchable. Time to delete it. -R. fiend 09:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep and add a link to it from the main Adolf Hitler page. The dab page is harmless. That Indian politician could be notable in that country. --Gene s 09:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Delete, I don't think this page is really necessary. If necessary at all, a reference to Adolf Lu Hitler Marak can be added to the main Hitler article, and we have the same effect with a lot less clutter -- Ferkelparade π 10:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To the page Adolf Hitler I prepended a pointer to Hitler (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard 11:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

~~Redirect to A.H.~~, there is no ambiguity about the name or what it refers to. Most people with the surname Hitler changed it over fifty years ago. Wyss 12:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Er... are you sure about redirecting? Nothing should link to a disambig page, so having it redirect to a regular page doesn't seem like a good idea. It's usually the other way around. JRM 14:03, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
- Thanks JRM, typing Hitler into the search box already takes the user directly to AH's page, so I vote Delete Wyss 14:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. There clearly are Wikipedia articles on more than one "Hitler". Since one is clearly more notable than the others it makes sense that Hitler should redirect there, but a disambig page should still exist, per Wikipedia policy. --L33tminion | (talk) 13:30, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Gene and L33tminion have points, but it's worth nothing that the other Hitlers are notable relatives of Adolf, and they're all mentioned in the "Hitler's family" section. That's not worth a separate disambig page if it's linked to from Adolf Hitler.
As for the aforementioned Adolf Lu Hitler Marak, from that page: "It may be noted that his name is not particularly curious within Meghalaya, where other local politicians are named Lenin R. Marak, Stalin L. Nangmin, Frankenstein W. Momin, or Tony Curtis Lyngdoh." Are those worth disambigs too? Rotten precedent. If we're going to quote policy, there's always Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia and Wikimedia is the process of resolving the conflict that occurs when articles about two or more different topics have the same natural title." (Emphasis in the original.) Is "Hitler" or even "Adolf Hitler" a natural title for Adolf Lu Hitler Marak? No. My bold conjecture is that people searching for or linking to Hitler do not want Adolf Lu Hitler Marak and should look in Adolf Hitler for his relatives, and hence the disambig is too pointless to exist. JRM 14:03, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
I saw keep. A while back I wrote an article on Everything2 about the name 'Hitler' (rather than the person), and I'm sure there's space for something similar here. A 'panga' is a type of bladed weapon popular in Kenya; Mel Gibson's first name is not short for anything, it is just 'Mel'. -81.179.194.227 15:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep, doesn't seem to do any harm, although I suppose it is kind of useless. Certainly Hitler should redirect to Adolf's article, but this can still exist, can't it? The note shouldn't be at the top of the page, though. Maybe at the bottom if really necessary. I'd actually like to see an article about the Hitler name itself, which I think would be interesting, and then that could be linked here in addition to the individuals. Everyking 04:50, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Re that last: absolutely. If 81.179.194.227 could put the material here, that would be wonderful. JRM 13:34, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
- Sorry, forgot to log in (again). The article is here [1], although too shallow and self-indulgent to be ported over directly. 'Hitler' is an interesting name because, unlike the names of many other famous leaders of the 20th Century, it is (a) extremely well-known, to the extent that 'Adolf' is almost redundant (b) not a common name but (c) not a fabricated 'nom de guerre', either. General opinion seems to be that it's a corruption of 'Hutter' and 'Hiedler', and that Adolf Hitler and has family were the only ones who used it. -Ashley Pomeroy 16:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - There is lots of interesting information in there that would make a nice addition to Wikipedia, but I think it would be best put on Hitler (name) or something similar (with a link at the top or (better) in a section of Adolf Hitler). This would also be the place to mention Adolf Lu Hitler Marak. However: I just don't think the disambig page should stay. There is nothing to disambiguate here. I'm all for keeping the information, I'm all for a new Hitler (name), but certainly not Hitler (disambiguation). That's just silly. Disambig pages are not indexes. People who are saying that it doesn't hurt are, IMO, missing the point: this sets a bad precedent for disambiguation pages; we have enough confusion on them as it is. This page should not stay, because it encourages people to add information at a place where nobody will think to look for it. And that does hurt. JRM 17:11, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
Keep. --JuntungWu 14:33, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
keep Anthony's approach seems correct to me Wolfman 05:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The Recycling Troll 21:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. As long as there are multiple pages that refer to someone/something named 'Hitler', I think it should be kept. Somebody in the WWW 06:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

"Little Hitler"

Is there any source for the court ruling that made "Little Hitler" an illegal insult? I'm going to remove the section unless someone can source it. Jdavidb 18:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disambig page

reference edit

This is a disambiguation page, not a list of articles to do with Hitler. See WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB for further information. Downfall (film) should not be listed here because it is unlikely that someone will type in "Hitler" when trying to specifically find that film article. Thanks/wangi 12:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-1889

Is there any record of any people of merit being named Hitler before 1889? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nog64 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion elsewhere

For the record, there has been some discussion of recent changes to this page on the talk page of the WikiProject Disambiguation. Interested parties can find it here. Please note that the link to Hitler which begins the introductory line is entirely correct according to the Manual of Style. Disambiguation pages are not articles, and have a different set of formatting guidelines which can be reviewed at WP:MOSDAB. Please use this talk page for any future discussions about the formatting of this page, especially in the case of multiple reversions. SlackerMom (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be serious now. The first word in an article should never be a link. I can't imagine why that would be allowed in the manual of style. Circular linking like that is never nice (even if, in this particular case, the link goes to another page). And why hasn't the discussion been held here? John Anderson (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion should have been held here. Unfortunately, your edits were drummed upon without clear explanation. There is a reasoning behind this particular practice. It begins with the fact that a disambiguation page is not an article. It is a navigational aid. This page, in particular, exists in order to help the user who is looking for something or someone known as "Hitler" to find the article he or she is seeking. Because this page is named "Hitler (disambiguation)" it is highly unlikely that someone will get here by typing in the name of this page. Rather they will be directed here by a link, probably a hatnote at the top of another "Hitler"-related article. In a typical scenario, a user will type in "Hitler" and will be taken to Adolf Hitler, which is most likely where they wanted to go. If for some chance they were looking for some other use of "Hitler", the hatnote at the top of that page would direct them to this page. They are NOT likely to be looking for Adolf Hitler, since that's where they just came from, which is why we put that link at the top of the page in the introduction, rather than mixed in with the other links below. The manual of style guideline which applies can be found here. In this case, we would consider Hitler the "primary topic", even though it is actually a redirect to Adolf Hitler. SlackerMom (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's the difference, what you write in your last sentence. If the page was named "Adolf Hitler (disambiguation)", I could understand the starting link, but "Hitler" is just a redirect to Adolf Hitler, it is not an article in itself. Therefor, I see no reason to let it be a link. The manual of style takes up an example where the link in the starting word is exactly as the name of the article it is pointing to, not a redirect. John Anderson (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but the fact remains that the Hitler redirect functions exactly the same as Adolf Hitler, and does represent the primary topic of this page. Redirects are not deprecated, not even on disambiguation pages, so there's no reason to automatically avoid them, and indeed their use is encouraged when they help a page retain a consistent format. The only other option is to move this dab page to Hitler, then reformat so that Adolf Hitler is the first link, but I think the redirect is better since it is so overwhelmingly primary. SlackerMom (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with you on this, but I'll let it be. It's not that important to me. John Anderson (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why use the redirect Hitler argument?

Among other redirects there's Hitler equivalence, Hitler rule, and Hitler card. However it should be noted that none of these are mentioned on their targeted article. Should this problem be fixed or would it be best to remove the entry altogether? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? Redirects are cheap. Grand master ka 03:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my point. I'm just asking for clarification. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I don't think it really matters, although "Hitler argument" could be used for Reducto ad Hitlerum. Grand master ka 04:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're telling me it's ok to use redirects without a reference? I don't believe WP:PIPING works that way. In all of the dabs I have edited, the redirect term is written on its target page. Might you have a precedent? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In general, it is best not to use piping or redirects in disambiguation pages so that it is clear to the reader which article is being suggested, and so that they remain in control of the choice of article." In this case, the listing mentions Godwin's Law, so it's clear what the listing is for, and the redirect is listed to tie it to the subject of this disambiguation page. In any case, this is the kind of small thing I would never bother to blow a gasket over. If it's causing you that much insecurity, then by all means, remove it. Grand master ka 04:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler as a name

A couple of weeks ago my sister told me she read an article in the local newspaper (Hamilton Spectator) that a local couple named their son Hitler (i.e. Hitler 'Smith'). The couple weren't Nazi's, they just said that they liked the name. I'm not saying the kid deserves his own page, but is this common? Other then the people related to Hitler and the fictional people named Hitler, there are only 3 others (Ferguson used it as a stage name only, the Zimbabwean nationalist leader seems like it was given to him as a nickname [probably because of his actions] and the other guy, who like the kid in the newspaper, his partents just liked the name. So is Hitler a common last name or even a first name? Tydamann (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of like Hitler in Love. 76.181.154.8 (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. There was a whole family of them living in Circleville, Ohio in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries

http://www.circlevilletoday.com/news/hitlers-were-county-pioneers/article_2a6487b2-a34a-55f4-83f4-dfcf116d15d5.html

Mark76 (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

from VfD

DOB- jan. 6th 1889 Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP, commonly known as the Nazi Party). He was Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945, and head of state (as Führer und Reichskanzler) from 1934 to 1945. Hitler is most well known for his central leadership role in the rise of fascism in Europe, World War II and the Holocaust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.141.32 (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler (family name)

Someone should create the page Hitler (family name), I think. I have no time and energy now to do it myself. — Ark25 (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hotler?

"Hotler" redirects to this page, even though there is no article with a title even close to "Hotler" listed in it. 94.234.41.111 (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, turns out it's from a misspelling. 109.225.98.60 (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]