Talk:Sheffield (disambiguation)

message: This page should probably be listed as simply "Sheffield", and the current (city of) Sheffield be moved. Charliez
:The city of Sheffield, England is by far the largest place with this name, and thus the primary meaning. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation. sjorford (?!) 14:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the disambiguation article (found by clicking “article” from the menu above), you will no doubt be surprised to note the large number of different meanings of the word Sheffield - and that it is not limited to names of places.  I notice you’re British, and I will therefore stress that I mean no offence, but there is of course no reason to believe that a majority of users looking for Sheffield, will be looking for the English city of that name.  The link you gave (Wikipedia:Disambiguation) will be helpful in your efforts to better understand how Wikipedia handles words with more than one meaning. Charliez 22:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the status quo. Sheffield (UK) is pre-eminent in significance and in the number and quality of incoming wikipedia links (which would all have to be redirected as part of any move, properly done).--ExtraBold 11:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Response posted to User talk:Charliez, so as not to repeat myself here. sjorford (?!) 12:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I prefer to sort by date of origin within sections. So, Sheffield, England would be first, then anything a part of it (like Sheffield Park) would be indented under it (and Sheffield Lake, Ohio, under Sheffield, Ohio--it's only logical). However, if it turns out the city was named after a person, then the people category would come first--or, if there are a lot of entries in the same country, that country would come first (like France does on Saint-Germaine. I don't play preferences; I let time decide the order. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 16:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Date of origin has nothing to do with the sort order.  Please familiarize yourself with WP:D and WP:MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ 17:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Familiarize yourself with common sense. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 08:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please resist the temptation to insult nearly every editor of Wikipedia whose thinking doesn't immediately agree with yours. At the same time, you seem to be giving perhaps too much credit to the intelligence or knowledge of most readers by assuming that they know which lake (The UK or US lake) originated first. The guidelines were established to help the readers; please don't ignore them or twist them just to please your own personal tastes. Chris the speller 16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure I've already given enough reasons why the guidelines need to be changed... It doesn't take a theoretical physicist to visit the articles and ascertain the date or origin of names of things... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 14:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reason(s) so far consist of only the "I prefer to" first sentence. The rest has been more about the "how" than the "why". The consensus is to let likelihood decide the order, not time. -- JHunterJ 15:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likelihood relative to who/what? I say relative to time/history. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 23:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sorting