Talk:Tom Wolf

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. This should not preclude moving the page to another suitable title, such as Tom Wolf (politician), if such a move has consensus. Dekimasuよ! 22:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Thomas W. Wolf → Tom Wolf – The subject is presently running frequent television ads as Tom Wolf, and is listed in recent sources this way.^[1][2][3] Comparable persons such as Tom Corbett and Ed Rendell are filed under their nicknames also. (Besides, there's actually a vacancy at Tom Wolf which presently redirects to Tom Wolfe. I actually tried moving it there, and I'm not sure why simply moving it over that redirect failed) Wnt (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose we have a disambiguation page Thomas Wolf which lists many different people, so if it doesn't point to Wolfe, it should point there. You haven't shown that this person is the primary topic of "Tom Wolf". There's also alot of WP:RECENTISM as a recent candidate for governor. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

My feeling was/is that since Tom Wolf currently points to a misspelling, it is essentially vacant and is free for the taking. If it had been pointing to Thomas Wolf, it would be a trickier decision for me. If you can point out other people going frequenly as Tom Wolf, I might be persuaded to support a disambiguation page there instead. (Such a page might overlap that of the people named Thomas Wolf, but with so many people to list it's best to be able to prioritize them according to how likely either form is to be encountered) Wnt (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Nobody else on the Thomas Wolf page appears to be known as Tom Wolf. We can add a hatnote to Tom Wolfe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Most notable individual of the name and with the last name Wolf per se. Seconding the suggestion from Necrothesp above, as well. Cloudchased (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ambiguous with Thomas Wolfs, Tom Wolfe, Thomas Wolfe. Disambiguation is needed. "W. " is fine for now, reconsider only if he is ever elected to something, or maybe if the article is improved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per SmokeyJoe. This Tom Wolf is not a clear primary topic as against the misspelling of other Tom Wolfes. In other words, I think it is quite likely that the majority of people searching for "Tom Wolf" would have a different person in mind, even if they are misspelling the name. Xoloz (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Several of the opinions above seem to be disregarding WP:COMMONNAME and the fact that we don't need to disambiguate anything that doesn't need disambiguating. Another article having a similar, but not identical, spelling is not a reason not to move this one to the correct name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure exactly what you are saying. Do you disagree that the titles should help readers recognize the topic they are looking for, and help them to not mis-recognize an unrelated topic for the topic they want? Which part of WP:COMMONNAME do you refer? "Need" is an extreme word. Many good things are not "need"s. "Similar, but not identical, spelling" can confound readers if we don't anticipate confusion. "The correct name" is a nebulous concept. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:COMMONNAME is very simple. We name things using their "common name" (i.e. the name by which they are most commonly known). This is a long-established principle of article naming on Wikipedia. In this case, that common name appears to be Tom Wolf, not Thomas W. Wolf. Why make an exception to our normal procedures in this case? In what way is redirecting Tom Wolf to a group of Thomas Wolfs who aren't known as Tom Wolf any more help to the reader? If the reader is actually looking for Tom Wolfe, why is a hatnote leading to Tom Wolfe any harder to understand than having to select Tom Wolfe from a disambiguation page? I'm afraid I just don't understand your reasoning. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Among other things, WP:COMMONNAME says, "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." I oppose this move because I believe that the majority of readers searching for "Tom Wolf" aren't looking for this gentleman; but rather, another Thomas Wolf(e). The mispellings are sufficiently likely such that the name is ambiguous. It is true that a hatnote be used; however, given the degree of ambiguity, I believe that redirection to a disambiguation page more efficiently serves the interests of the largest number of searchers. I also don't believe WP:COMMONNAME was written to promote ambiguity of any kind; and thus, I assert that it is inapplicable in this particular circumstance. Xoloz (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not true. We expressly never use full names if they are not commonly used, even if that means we have to use a parenthetical disambiguator. Making it one rule for one subject and another rule for another makes a nonsense of the whole procedure. And you haven't adequately explained why a hatnote is any less efficient than a redirect to a disambiguation page. If people are actually looking for Tom Wolfe they're still going to have to do some reading - either a hatnote at the top of the page or a disambiguation entry buried two thirds of the way down a list. Which is more obvious, I wonder?! -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:COMMONNAME is not very simple. It does not simply say what you say it does, and it must be read alongside other considerations.

  Note the part about "prevalence in reliable English-language sources". The one decent biography I've found, Thomas W. Wolf, names him as "Thomas W. Wolf"

  This "Tom Wolf" flurry of sources has come about as part of a current election campaign. These sources are not what we consider highly reliable. "Tom Wolf" is a borderline neologism, to my reading of the sources over time. My first reaction to this move proposal is that it is an attempt to make Wikipedia match somebody's election campaign.

  Small spelling variations are not enough to prevent people looking for other Tom Wolfs from ending up at this page, and this Tom Wolf, a never-elected candidate, with no international significance, has a very weak claim for PrimaryTopic.

  Anyone searching Wikipedia for "Tom Wolf Pennsylvania" or "Tom Wolf governor" or "Tom wolf election" or "Tom wolf democrat" are going to find this and the election page as the top two hits. It seems that you want myopic Pennsylvanians currently exposed to heavy advertising, searching "Tom Wolf" to be sent immediately to this biography, with little regard for others looking for other Tom Wolfs. No. Far better to wait, see if he is elected, and then see how independent reliable sources continue to introduce him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, WP:COMMONNAME is very simple. I've been using it to name biographies for years. No, if there were other Tom Wolfs he undoubtedly wouldn't be a primary topic, but which other Tom Wolfs are we talking about? I can't see any. Thomas Wolf, yes. Thom Wolf, yes. Tommy Wolf, yes (although he doesn't have an article as yet). Tom Wolf? No. However, we're obviously not going to agree, so best to break off this debate and see what happens. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• If he sticks with "Tom Wolf" after winning the election, then I might agree with you. I am probably mostly bothered by renaming due to recentism in sources. If you could show me reliables sources showing that he went by "Tom Wolf" ten or more years ago, I'd pay them attention. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose partly per SmokeyJoe's point that "Tom Wolf" is ambiguous with other similar names, and partly per the recentism of the rationale. A primary topic should be selected on the basis of long-term significance, not on the basis of a recent TV advertising campaign. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Tom Wolf (politician) may be OK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.175.135 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Necrothesp. Use a hatnote to link to Tom Wolfe and similar names. It's rather condescending to assume a reader is making an error without any evidence— for example, if there were frequent misspellings of "Tom Wolfe" as "Tom Wolf" in reliable sources, or if he were a medieval figure with inconsistent spelling. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Questionable Source

It has been brought to my attention the source "54"claims that PA is the first state to "implement a statewide campaign that called for a collaboration of schools, law enforcement, victim services organizations, and other community members to promote awareness, education, and bystander intervention of sexual violence specifically on school campuses." That article referenced the source https://www.governor.pa.gov/its-on-us/ which has no mention of the aforementioned fact, let alone a primary source. I also checked all 27 captures of the site on the Wayback Machine and there were again no mention of the statement. Can someone please confirm a primary source or delete the sentence? If you find anymore evidence, bring it up to my talk page here

Ulse X (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Tom Wolf (politician)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Tom Wolf (politician)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "primaryresults":

• From Pennsylvania gubernatorial election, 2014: "2014 General Primary - Governor". Pennsylvania Department of State. Retrieved May 12, 2014.
• From Pennsylvania lieutenant gubernatorial election, 2014: "2014 General Primary - Lieutenant Governor". Pennsylvania Department of State. Retrieved 12 May 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

One week in office- Wolf already sued

Isn't it worth mentioning that Gov. Wolf has already been sued by Republicans for dismissing the Director of the Public records authority? --62.153.225.50 (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There is already precedent for this:

Venesky v. Ridge: http://www.leagle.com/decision/20021651789A2d862_11567 In 2000, Governor Tom Ridge fired George Venesky from the Pennsylvania Game Commission, an independent administrative agency, to whom he was appointed pursuant to the Pennsylvania Game and Wildlife Code to an eight-year term. In 2002, Commonwealth Court upheld the firing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wstlngtime (talk • contribs) 14:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Jewish ancestry?

Does Tom Wolf have any Jewish ancestry? Wolf is sometimes a surname used in Jewish families. 73.10.45.43 (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

What Did Wolf Do About Military Service

A common problem with Wikipedia articles is that they sometimes lack historical context. For a healthy male Wolf's age, there were three big issues as he became a young man -- Vietnam, Vietnam, and Vietnam. But the article contains nothing about what he did about the draft, how he managed to avoid serving, what he thought as a future politician about THE biggest political issue of his lifetime. Somebody should beef up the main article in this regard. Because only Democrats can edit Wikipedia without being accused of vandalism, some Democrat should edit the article and improve it. Moderates and Republicans can't edit Wikipedia at all, and should not even attempt it regardless how pure their motives are.