![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
There's an interesting page here... has a 133-word opening paragraph, is tagged as a dab page, has an enormous number of links entries with a few "Ranger ([disambiguation])" in amongst them, and a discussion on whether "Rangers" should be merged into it.
PamD (
talk)
11:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The following messages were left on my User talk page, but they seem more appropriately addressed here. -- Russ (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest moving this "new dab" to Heat vision (disambiguation) and have Heat vision as the primary topic. Everyone agree? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 19:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone drop by Draft and/or Talk:Draft and offer an opinion on a disagreement about whether to include a "note on spelling"? Thanks! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Very disappointed to see this edit. Please could someone discuss the issue, either here or at Talk:Draft, or point me in the direction of a meaningful discussion somewhere, before summarily dismissing what seems to me a useful addition to Draft. Thank you. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Guido, a Dab, &
Guido (given name) were cut&past-merged without sign of discussion in May, after creation of the g.n. one in December. (Is that called a
May-December marriage?) Without exhaustive investigation, the 230-ish-entry ed-hist of the Dab since September 2005 seems unremarkable. The creator of the g.n. appears to have found its entries in the history after a vandal had replaced them.
In light of the lack of discussion in reversing a split that is clearly called for by the nature of Dabs and AFAI can tell is an SOP by many besides myself, i'd feel justified by simply doing the usual cleanup. But a chance to object won't hurt, and it also offers a chance for comment on my notion that the history of one of these illegitimate hybrid pages is more likely to be useful to the resulting g.n. page than to the Dab, since the terseness of Dabs keeps that task fairly clerical compared to name-origin description and a certain "human-interest" element that some (well, i) tolerate much more on name pages than on Dabs. In this case, i'm inclined to split the May-to-now edit history out, and combine it with the Dec-to-May g.n. history that is currently hidden under the Rdr.
--
Jerzy•
t
22:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I took the Dab-CU of International (disambiguation) as far as it'll go at present. It had total disregard for the Dab-related guidelines, which reflects IMO the renaming of the former Dab International to the present title, and the declaration w/o apparent discussion of International as the primary topic, with an original lead sent of
and a current one of
I think it should go back to being an equal-dab'n, but i don't know whether the current International should be
The closest thing to an opening line for the Dab was the use of {{Primary|International}} to get
This International relies excessively on
references to
primary sources. |
but i wrote the first line of the cleaned up Dab as
Do i seem to be on the right track?
--
Jerzy•
t
07:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone give me a hand here? Not trying to be mean or anything here but I can't tell whether the opposing editor is being disruptive or just plain ignorant. Help? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 23:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, we're trying to clarify the guideline on how piping and redirects should be handled at disambiguation pages. There seem to be various different ways of handling things, so we have a sort of survey running, to ask people how they've been processing these when they do disambig cleanup. All opinions are welcome, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Piping and redirects. -- El on ka 03:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. In assessing the article Dava (comics), I noticed that there was no primary Dava article. I don't know that the comic book character is necessarily the most notable thing named "Dava", so I created a disambiguation page for it. The majority of "Dava" articles are for people who have "Dava" as their given name, so I put those in a separate section. I tried to follow the MoS for dab pages, but if someone wants to take a look at it and adjust it as necessary, that probably would be a good idea. Thanks, GentlemanGhost ( talk) 18:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyone want to take care of this mess? I'm done for the night ... Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 07:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I've found it frustrating that when you type an element symbol in Wikipedia, you then have to search through a long disambiguation page in order to find the sometimes arbitrarily placed link to the element. To solve this frustration, I propose Template:See-element. Tell me what you think. Could something like this be placed at the right of every disambiguation of a element symbol?
For the chemical element: |
---|
35 Br |
![]() |
See Bromine |
Possibly something a bit smaller? Sir Stig ( talk) 02:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be best if this dab was moved to Ultimo? Not sure why the lingerie brand serves as the primary meaning. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 18:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The Sicilian people disambiguation page does not fit the usual parameters. Possibly it can be best understood as a place-holder until an article is written (if ever). Nonetheless, it does seem functional as well over 30 pages currently link there. Perhaps that could be fixed by changing all of those links to Sicily or Sicily#Demographics, but I have noticed that the list of links pointing there grows rather than shrinks, so there is a tendency for editors to assume that it is a viable direct link. Is the current situation a problem or a solution? -- Bejnar ( talk) 07:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The disambiguation page thread at Talk:Yonsei needs constructive intervention; and my strategies for mitigating inflammatory rhetoric are likely to prove ineffective. A corollary dispute is developing in a redirect talk page thread at Talk:Yonsei Severance Hospital. -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Here are references why Tenmei ( talk · contribs) put {{OR}}, {{SYNTHESIS}} tags to Yonsei Severance Hospital [1]
We need constructive input to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei). Thanks-- Caspian blue 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue has both engineered a novel tactic and a wiki- neologism to describe it -- a "hoax redirect." I avoid conjecture as to the purpose of this novel gambit, but the available data support an arguable claim that a problem exists. This problem deserves closer scrutiny. This dispute would appear to involve a non-standard issues.
FIRST, an article about Yonsei, a descriptive term for fourth-generation emigrants/immigrants of Japanese descent in Latin America, North America and elsewhere in the world, attracted Caspian blue's attention. This non-stub article was arbitrarily moved and re-named without discussion or opportunity for comment and consensus discussion:
SECOND, the presumptively necessary disambiguation was edited to eliminate specious links:
THIRD, the misnamed Yonsei (Japanese term) was further modified without discussion or opportunity for comment and consensus discussion -- moved again to Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei):
FOURTH, when I attempted to question the contrived redirect -- Yonsei Severance Hospital, then Caspian blue initiated an AfD thread to delete the Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei) ... which was formerly Yonsei (Japanese term) and just plain Yonsei before that ....
PROPOSAL #1: The article about emigrants/immigrants of Japanese descent should be named Yonsei in the same simple manner as its corollary articles -- Issei (1st generation emigrants/immgirants), Nisei (2nd generation emigrants/immigrants) and Sansei (3rd generation emigrants/immigrants). The original name should be restored as the simplest and best solution to unnecessary problems which flow from a series of unhelpful article moves.
The article's name needs be the subject of reasoned discussion; and a consensus decision needs to be reached in due course.
PROPOSAL #2: Like Yale (disambiguation), which Caspian blue mentions in the second paragraph of the opening salvo at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei), this page can be renamed Yonsei (disambiguation). In fact, this is what could have been done, should have been done in the first place .... Caspian blue's post hoc analysis explains an ante-hoc decision-making process.
Bluntly, Caspian blue deliberately trod in a rough-shod fashion over consensus-building niceties -- see second paragraph. I take grim notice of the mention of " rants" attributable to me. This is an inadvertent admission that Talk:Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei) was ignored; and instead, Caspian blue selected a more confrontational attack.
My response: By all means, do read anything and everything I've written, and what seem especially relevant are the prose Caspian blue characterizes as "rants." In the context my "rants" create, the disambiguation is seen as nothing but a contrived gambit, unsupported by research or reference citations.
The difficult issues to be addressed are these:
This is a serious situation which calls for a thoughtful approach.
However, for me, what is not tolerable is anything like the perverse charade which unfolded at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-06 Woo Jang-choon, more specifically in the full discussion thread which unfolded here. -- Tenmei ( talk) 00:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
___________________
Extended content
|
---|
Tenmei, keep it simple and remind no personal attacksTenmei ( talk · contribs), or Ooperhoofd, this is so typical and repeated tedious (of course, disruptive) behaviors of yours. Did you ever expect that people would sit and read through your lengthy insistence here? Replace your rambling with succinct "DIFFs" and reduce (I too well know of your nature, so just "reduce the personal attack") as Theresa knott (you directly quoted her "bullshit" comment made in August yesterday, so) and many many admins advised(warned) to you. Like Waseda, Yale, Harvard redirect their article, Yonsei University would deserve to have the redirect page but I made the page to go back to this "DAB page. I don't see why the unfamiliar "Japanese term" should have its position here. At best, "Yonsei generation" would be an alternative. Besides, you're very hasty before the AFD even would close. Be calm and "think" reasonable and behave less disruptive, Don't pull my legs here again with your inflammatory and provocative languages. Better have communication skills, less make drama. Looking through the snobbish fallacy list does not make you logical. Good luck with your WP:CANVASSing. P.S I know you've been lurking my contribution and following me as always, but what has to do with the unproceed MED? Be logical.:P-- Caspian blue 00:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Primary Topic.Which page that should be at Yonsei is governed by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In short, if a meaning of Yonsei can be considered as being far more common than any other then that meaning should be selected as the primary topic. I have not seen any argument that the term Yonsei in English is more often used about fourth generation Japanese immigrants than it is about a Korean university or medical journal. In the absence of such arguments WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is fairly clear that no primary topic should be selected. Taemyr ( talk) 18:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Primary topic and researchGoogle search
Google book Google Scholar
Whatever article related to Yosei, the Japanese term, fourth generation is always accompanied with it. The result shows that the primary topic of Yonsei is Yonsei University. So, well, I think we move the dab to Yonsei (disambiguation) and Yonsei redirects to Yonsei University just like Harvard, Yale, Waseda to Harvard University, Yale University, Waseda University.-- Caspian blue 18:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
|
I have been patrolling through Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Maintenance and stumbled across the page Wesleyan. Now some people have gone and done a pretty job on the page, however, it is moving the page away from how I envisage a disambig page, and getting more to an article and/or list page, or some combination of all three. Others opinion and views would be appreciated. -- billinghurst ( talk) 23:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Editors who may be concentrating on forcing all disambiguation pages into an authorized conformity may forget as they delve into excruciating minutiae, discarding information that does not "fit" (see Procrustes), that Wikipedia is a readers' guide. Deleting useful guidance runs counter to the project's basis directive. It's well to keep that in mind when struggling to fit recalcitrant facts into orthodox straitjackets--Wetman 01:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
What is your point concerning Procrustes)? Abtract ( talk) 21:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The page
Papal oath says that a papal oath is a papal oath (an oath taken by a pope) - we don't need an encyclopedia to tell us that. It then mentions the only text that is in fact referred to as "the Papal Oath", an oath supposed to have been taken by Popes for centuries, the alleged "Papal Oath" that Wikipedia calls
Papal Oath (Traditionalist Catholic). Of the other three "papal oaths" listed, the first is a profession of faith, not an oath, the second is indeed an oath of fealty to an emperor, and the third was never taken by any recognized pope, and so cannot be called a papal oath. No source outside Wikipedia calls any of these three a "papal oath". The page should become, I think, a redirect page to the only article that does treat of what is actually called a papal oath.
Lima (
talk)
13:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Step references other dab pages. I put a ( disambiguation page) edit on the same line as those dab pages. Is this the best way to do it? -- Sultec ( talk) 20:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Could someone review my request for a move to the primary topic (the song)? Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 00:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone may need to watch LCC, as User:Liverpoolcc has been overwriting the dab page with an article non-notable club... an AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LCC was closed as REVERT to dab from a previous overwrite by the same user. 76.66.195.63 ( talk) 07:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to use Acid (drug) instead of Lysergic acid diethylamide according to WP:PIPING? The latter does share the dab term, but I'd like to hear some suggestions. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 05:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I need some help with this. I believe there needs to be a disambiguation for "St. John the Divine," but I'm a little confused about how to set this up. There's are articles for John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, and John of Patmos. All three are saints. Then we have multiple churches of the same name, including Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, New York, which is what brought me to this problem. The Cathedral was just repaired from fire damage, and I simply searched for "St. John the Divine," looking to get the Cathedral, but there is no link from John of Patmos to the Cathedral's page. There are already two disambiguation links at the top of that page, so my understanding per Wikipedia:Disambiguation is that a third disambig link necessitates an entire page. But where to put it? "John of Patmos"? "John the Divine" (currently redirects to John of Patmos)? St. John the Divine (currently redirects to John of Patmos)? Help! -- Wolf530 ( talk) 22:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Have you considered simply using Saint John? Abtract ( talk) 16:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Dasht (disambiguation)#Merger from Dashti. -- Bejnar ( talk) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
At the Talk:Vyatsky page editor Ezhiki removed the disambiguation project info and said as an edit summary "a set, not a dab". Ezhiki also said in an edit summary on the main page that the list on the Vyatsky page was reclassed as a set, and removed the Template:geodis . Discuss at Talk:Vyatsky#Disambiguation page or Set index article. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I just noted something, why are there two dabs? Isn't one supposed to be a name page? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 22:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Just looking for an opinion on A1 it appears to be a dab page and an article! it explanations of the term and lots of external links to non-article A1s (some just have A1 (or A-One) in their name). Doesnt look right but I thought I would ask the project. MilborneOne ( talk) 10:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It appears Rich Baronets could do to be made a disambiguation page. -- Una Smith ( talk) 00:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok you'll probably have been asked this before but i thought i should ask anyway. I was wondering, how should items in lists be included in disambiguation pages? I initially thought that it would be [[Name of list page#article name|article name]], but this was reverted under WP:PIPING. What should it read as? Thanks, SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 19:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
E.g. [2]. The pages can be found anyway via categories anyway, and creating talk pages without useful content is wasting bandwidth, server usage, and the time of people checking the talk page and it's edits. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-22 t21:06z
I requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves#10 December 2008 that the article Mangal be moved to Mangal (barbecue) so that the disambiguation page could thereafter become the primary, with discussion at Talk:Mangal#Requested move. I noticed that the Mangel disambiguation page does not yet exist. I was wondering how other editors felt about consolidating the Mangal and Mangel disambiguation pages. Or instead, should the Mangel disambiguation page be created separately? -- Bejnar ( talk) 00:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have a disambiguation page for Paul McDermott? While there are two people with that name who have articles, only one of them ( Paul McDermott (comedian)) goes by that name professionally - the other goes by Paul Mac and is identified as such throughout his article. Both have a dab at the top of their pages, surely that's enough to do away with any confusion. - Shoemoney2night ( talk) 07:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate someone looking at this one ... start at the talk page maybe. Abtract ( talk) 21:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is about political regimes, yet it contains disambiguation information. I think the "Science" section should be split into a separate article (if it is notable) and a new page Regime (disambiguation) should be created. -- George100 ( talk) 03:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Need native speaker help. Carn ( talk) 17:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Need some help in gaining consensus. Details are on Talk:Hastings, but in summary, the town in Sussex England (close to the site of the famous battle) is the primary subject, but it's unclear whether it's primary enough. It certainly is if article visits are anything to go by, and also with whatlinkshere (though there are considerable numbers of misdirected links intended for other article pages). Google gives a murkier superiority - a rough estimate of 3.0 million ghits for Hastings, East Sussex, 2.1 million for Hastings, New Zealand, and 2.0 million for Hastings, Michigan. Is it worth mocing the article to Hastings, East Sussex and moving the dab pagee to Hastings? Grutness... wha? 23:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I visited this category looking for information about abandoned clothing, and all I found were articles about a band. What kind of dab header would work here? Is there an appropriate template? At one extreme, I would expect a category redirect to Category:Waste, but I'll leave the final decision to the good folks in this project, who will probably not want to rename the category. I couldn't find the right template, so I just added {{for|Rubbish, trash, garbage, or junk|Category:Waste}}. Is there a better way? Viriditas ( talk) 01:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
There's an interesting page here... has a 133-word opening paragraph, is tagged as a dab page, has an enormous number of links entries with a few "Ranger ([disambiguation])" in amongst them, and a discussion on whether "Rangers" should be merged into it.
PamD (
talk)
11:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The following messages were left on my User talk page, but they seem more appropriately addressed here. -- Russ (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest moving this "new dab" to Heat vision (disambiguation) and have Heat vision as the primary topic. Everyone agree? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 19:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone drop by Draft and/or Talk:Draft and offer an opinion on a disagreement about whether to include a "note on spelling"? Thanks! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Very disappointed to see this edit. Please could someone discuss the issue, either here or at Talk:Draft, or point me in the direction of a meaningful discussion somewhere, before summarily dismissing what seems to me a useful addition to Draft. Thank you. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Guido, a Dab, &
Guido (given name) were cut&past-merged without sign of discussion in May, after creation of the g.n. one in December. (Is that called a
May-December marriage?) Without exhaustive investigation, the 230-ish-entry ed-hist of the Dab since September 2005 seems unremarkable. The creator of the g.n. appears to have found its entries in the history after a vandal had replaced them.
In light of the lack of discussion in reversing a split that is clearly called for by the nature of Dabs and AFAI can tell is an SOP by many besides myself, i'd feel justified by simply doing the usual cleanup. But a chance to object won't hurt, and it also offers a chance for comment on my notion that the history of one of these illegitimate hybrid pages is more likely to be useful to the resulting g.n. page than to the Dab, since the terseness of Dabs keeps that task fairly clerical compared to name-origin description and a certain "human-interest" element that some (well, i) tolerate much more on name pages than on Dabs. In this case, i'm inclined to split the May-to-now edit history out, and combine it with the Dec-to-May g.n. history that is currently hidden under the Rdr.
--
Jerzy•
t
22:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I took the Dab-CU of International (disambiguation) as far as it'll go at present. It had total disregard for the Dab-related guidelines, which reflects IMO the renaming of the former Dab International to the present title, and the declaration w/o apparent discussion of International as the primary topic, with an original lead sent of
and a current one of
I think it should go back to being an equal-dab'n, but i don't know whether the current International should be
The closest thing to an opening line for the Dab was the use of {{Primary|International}} to get
This International relies excessively on
references to
primary sources. |
but i wrote the first line of the cleaned up Dab as
Do i seem to be on the right track?
--
Jerzy•
t
07:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone give me a hand here? Not trying to be mean or anything here but I can't tell whether the opposing editor is being disruptive or just plain ignorant. Help? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 23:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, we're trying to clarify the guideline on how piping and redirects should be handled at disambiguation pages. There seem to be various different ways of handling things, so we have a sort of survey running, to ask people how they've been processing these when they do disambig cleanup. All opinions are welcome, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Piping and redirects. -- El on ka 03:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. In assessing the article Dava (comics), I noticed that there was no primary Dava article. I don't know that the comic book character is necessarily the most notable thing named "Dava", so I created a disambiguation page for it. The majority of "Dava" articles are for people who have "Dava" as their given name, so I put those in a separate section. I tried to follow the MoS for dab pages, but if someone wants to take a look at it and adjust it as necessary, that probably would be a good idea. Thanks, GentlemanGhost ( talk) 18:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyone want to take care of this mess? I'm done for the night ... Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 07:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I've found it frustrating that when you type an element symbol in Wikipedia, you then have to search through a long disambiguation page in order to find the sometimes arbitrarily placed link to the element. To solve this frustration, I propose Template:See-element. Tell me what you think. Could something like this be placed at the right of every disambiguation of a element symbol?
For the chemical element: |
---|
35 Br |
![]() |
See Bromine |
Possibly something a bit smaller? Sir Stig ( talk) 02:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be best if this dab was moved to Ultimo? Not sure why the lingerie brand serves as the primary meaning. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 18:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The Sicilian people disambiguation page does not fit the usual parameters. Possibly it can be best understood as a place-holder until an article is written (if ever). Nonetheless, it does seem functional as well over 30 pages currently link there. Perhaps that could be fixed by changing all of those links to Sicily or Sicily#Demographics, but I have noticed that the list of links pointing there grows rather than shrinks, so there is a tendency for editors to assume that it is a viable direct link. Is the current situation a problem or a solution? -- Bejnar ( talk) 07:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The disambiguation page thread at Talk:Yonsei needs constructive intervention; and my strategies for mitigating inflammatory rhetoric are likely to prove ineffective. A corollary dispute is developing in a redirect talk page thread at Talk:Yonsei Severance Hospital. -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Here are references why Tenmei ( talk · contribs) put {{OR}}, {{SYNTHESIS}} tags to Yonsei Severance Hospital [1]
We need constructive input to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei). Thanks-- Caspian blue 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue has both engineered a novel tactic and a wiki- neologism to describe it -- a "hoax redirect." I avoid conjecture as to the purpose of this novel gambit, but the available data support an arguable claim that a problem exists. This problem deserves closer scrutiny. This dispute would appear to involve a non-standard issues.
FIRST, an article about Yonsei, a descriptive term for fourth-generation emigrants/immigrants of Japanese descent in Latin America, North America and elsewhere in the world, attracted Caspian blue's attention. This non-stub article was arbitrarily moved and re-named without discussion or opportunity for comment and consensus discussion:
SECOND, the presumptively necessary disambiguation was edited to eliminate specious links:
THIRD, the misnamed Yonsei (Japanese term) was further modified without discussion or opportunity for comment and consensus discussion -- moved again to Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei):
FOURTH, when I attempted to question the contrived redirect -- Yonsei Severance Hospital, then Caspian blue initiated an AfD thread to delete the Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei) ... which was formerly Yonsei (Japanese term) and just plain Yonsei before that ....
PROPOSAL #1: The article about emigrants/immigrants of Japanese descent should be named Yonsei in the same simple manner as its corollary articles -- Issei (1st generation emigrants/immgirants), Nisei (2nd generation emigrants/immigrants) and Sansei (3rd generation emigrants/immigrants). The original name should be restored as the simplest and best solution to unnecessary problems which flow from a series of unhelpful article moves.
The article's name needs be the subject of reasoned discussion; and a consensus decision needs to be reached in due course.
PROPOSAL #2: Like Yale (disambiguation), which Caspian blue mentions in the second paragraph of the opening salvo at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei), this page can be renamed Yonsei (disambiguation). In fact, this is what could have been done, should have been done in the first place .... Caspian blue's post hoc analysis explains an ante-hoc decision-making process.
Bluntly, Caspian blue deliberately trod in a rough-shod fashion over consensus-building niceties -- see second paragraph. I take grim notice of the mention of " rants" attributable to me. This is an inadvertent admission that Talk:Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei) was ignored; and instead, Caspian blue selected a more confrontational attack.
My response: By all means, do read anything and everything I've written, and what seem especially relevant are the prose Caspian blue characterizes as "rants." In the context my "rants" create, the disambiguation is seen as nothing but a contrived gambit, unsupported by research or reference citations.
The difficult issues to be addressed are these:
This is a serious situation which calls for a thoughtful approach.
However, for me, what is not tolerable is anything like the perverse charade which unfolded at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-06 Woo Jang-choon, more specifically in the full discussion thread which unfolded here. -- Tenmei ( talk) 00:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
___________________
Extended content
|
---|
Tenmei, keep it simple and remind no personal attacksTenmei ( talk · contribs), or Ooperhoofd, this is so typical and repeated tedious (of course, disruptive) behaviors of yours. Did you ever expect that people would sit and read through your lengthy insistence here? Replace your rambling with succinct "DIFFs" and reduce (I too well know of your nature, so just "reduce the personal attack") as Theresa knott (you directly quoted her "bullshit" comment made in August yesterday, so) and many many admins advised(warned) to you. Like Waseda, Yale, Harvard redirect their article, Yonsei University would deserve to have the redirect page but I made the page to go back to this "DAB page. I don't see why the unfamiliar "Japanese term" should have its position here. At best, "Yonsei generation" would be an alternative. Besides, you're very hasty before the AFD even would close. Be calm and "think" reasonable and behave less disruptive, Don't pull my legs here again with your inflammatory and provocative languages. Better have communication skills, less make drama. Looking through the snobbish fallacy list does not make you logical. Good luck with your WP:CANVASSing. P.S I know you've been lurking my contribution and following me as always, but what has to do with the unproceed MED? Be logical.:P-- Caspian blue 00:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Primary Topic.Which page that should be at Yonsei is governed by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In short, if a meaning of Yonsei can be considered as being far more common than any other then that meaning should be selected as the primary topic. I have not seen any argument that the term Yonsei in English is more often used about fourth generation Japanese immigrants than it is about a Korean university or medical journal. In the absence of such arguments WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is fairly clear that no primary topic should be selected. Taemyr ( talk) 18:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Primary topic and researchGoogle search
Google book Google Scholar
Whatever article related to Yosei, the Japanese term, fourth generation is always accompanied with it. The result shows that the primary topic of Yonsei is Yonsei University. So, well, I think we move the dab to Yonsei (disambiguation) and Yonsei redirects to Yonsei University just like Harvard, Yale, Waseda to Harvard University, Yale University, Waseda University.-- Caspian blue 18:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
|
I have been patrolling through Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Maintenance and stumbled across the page Wesleyan. Now some people have gone and done a pretty job on the page, however, it is moving the page away from how I envisage a disambig page, and getting more to an article and/or list page, or some combination of all three. Others opinion and views would be appreciated. -- billinghurst ( talk) 23:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Editors who may be concentrating on forcing all disambiguation pages into an authorized conformity may forget as they delve into excruciating minutiae, discarding information that does not "fit" (see Procrustes), that Wikipedia is a readers' guide. Deleting useful guidance runs counter to the project's basis directive. It's well to keep that in mind when struggling to fit recalcitrant facts into orthodox straitjackets--Wetman 01:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
What is your point concerning Procrustes)? Abtract ( talk) 21:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The page
Papal oath says that a papal oath is a papal oath (an oath taken by a pope) - we don't need an encyclopedia to tell us that. It then mentions the only text that is in fact referred to as "the Papal Oath", an oath supposed to have been taken by Popes for centuries, the alleged "Papal Oath" that Wikipedia calls
Papal Oath (Traditionalist Catholic). Of the other three "papal oaths" listed, the first is a profession of faith, not an oath, the second is indeed an oath of fealty to an emperor, and the third was never taken by any recognized pope, and so cannot be called a papal oath. No source outside Wikipedia calls any of these three a "papal oath". The page should become, I think, a redirect page to the only article that does treat of what is actually called a papal oath.
Lima (
talk)
13:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Step references other dab pages. I put a ( disambiguation page) edit on the same line as those dab pages. Is this the best way to do it? -- Sultec ( talk) 20:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Could someone review my request for a move to the primary topic (the song)? Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 00:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone may need to watch LCC, as User:Liverpoolcc has been overwriting the dab page with an article non-notable club... an AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LCC was closed as REVERT to dab from a previous overwrite by the same user. 76.66.195.63 ( talk) 07:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to use Acid (drug) instead of Lysergic acid diethylamide according to WP:PIPING? The latter does share the dab term, but I'd like to hear some suggestions. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 05:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I need some help with this. I believe there needs to be a disambiguation for "St. John the Divine," but I'm a little confused about how to set this up. There's are articles for John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, and John of Patmos. All three are saints. Then we have multiple churches of the same name, including Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, New York, which is what brought me to this problem. The Cathedral was just repaired from fire damage, and I simply searched for "St. John the Divine," looking to get the Cathedral, but there is no link from John of Patmos to the Cathedral's page. There are already two disambiguation links at the top of that page, so my understanding per Wikipedia:Disambiguation is that a third disambig link necessitates an entire page. But where to put it? "John of Patmos"? "John the Divine" (currently redirects to John of Patmos)? St. John the Divine (currently redirects to John of Patmos)? Help! -- Wolf530 ( talk) 22:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Have you considered simply using Saint John? Abtract ( talk) 16:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Dasht (disambiguation)#Merger from Dashti. -- Bejnar ( talk) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
At the Talk:Vyatsky page editor Ezhiki removed the disambiguation project info and said as an edit summary "a set, not a dab". Ezhiki also said in an edit summary on the main page that the list on the Vyatsky page was reclassed as a set, and removed the Template:geodis . Discuss at Talk:Vyatsky#Disambiguation page or Set index article. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I just noted something, why are there two dabs? Isn't one supposed to be a name page? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 22:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Just looking for an opinion on A1 it appears to be a dab page and an article! it explanations of the term and lots of external links to non-article A1s (some just have A1 (or A-One) in their name). Doesnt look right but I thought I would ask the project. MilborneOne ( talk) 10:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It appears Rich Baronets could do to be made a disambiguation page. -- Una Smith ( talk) 00:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok you'll probably have been asked this before but i thought i should ask anyway. I was wondering, how should items in lists be included in disambiguation pages? I initially thought that it would be [[Name of list page#article name|article name]], but this was reverted under WP:PIPING. What should it read as? Thanks, SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 19:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
E.g. [2]. The pages can be found anyway via categories anyway, and creating talk pages without useful content is wasting bandwidth, server usage, and the time of people checking the talk page and it's edits. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-22 t21:06z
I requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves#10 December 2008 that the article Mangal be moved to Mangal (barbecue) so that the disambiguation page could thereafter become the primary, with discussion at Talk:Mangal#Requested move. I noticed that the Mangel disambiguation page does not yet exist. I was wondering how other editors felt about consolidating the Mangal and Mangel disambiguation pages. Or instead, should the Mangel disambiguation page be created separately? -- Bejnar ( talk) 00:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have a disambiguation page for Paul McDermott? While there are two people with that name who have articles, only one of them ( Paul McDermott (comedian)) goes by that name professionally - the other goes by Paul Mac and is identified as such throughout his article. Both have a dab at the top of their pages, surely that's enough to do away with any confusion. - Shoemoney2night ( talk) 07:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate someone looking at this one ... start at the talk page maybe. Abtract ( talk) 21:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is about political regimes, yet it contains disambiguation information. I think the "Science" section should be split into a separate article (if it is notable) and a new page Regime (disambiguation) should be created. -- George100 ( talk) 03:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Need native speaker help. Carn ( talk) 17:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Need some help in gaining consensus. Details are on Talk:Hastings, but in summary, the town in Sussex England (close to the site of the famous battle) is the primary subject, but it's unclear whether it's primary enough. It certainly is if article visits are anything to go by, and also with whatlinkshere (though there are considerable numbers of misdirected links intended for other article pages). Google gives a murkier superiority - a rough estimate of 3.0 million ghits for Hastings, East Sussex, 2.1 million for Hastings, New Zealand, and 2.0 million for Hastings, Michigan. Is it worth mocing the article to Hastings, East Sussex and moving the dab pagee to Hastings? Grutness... wha? 23:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I visited this category looking for information about abandoned clothing, and all I found were articles about a band. What kind of dab header would work here? Is there an appropriate template? At one extreme, I would expect a category redirect to Category:Waste, but I'll leave the final decision to the good folks in this project, who will probably not want to rename the category. I couldn't find the right template, so I just added {{for|Rubbish, trash, garbage, or junk|Category:Waste}}. Is there a better way? Viriditas ( talk) 01:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)