Talk:Andrade (disambiguation)

message: Hello, I'm wondering about your edits to Andrade and Andrade (disambiguation).  They had (previously) two different functions--Andrade was about a single family in Spain (everyone in the "See also" list was a member of that particular family).  Andrade (disambiguation) listed nearly everyone with the name.  Now, however, the two pages have essentially the same information, and so there's no way for a reader to tell which Andrades belong to the aristocratic family of Spain and which don't.  I was hoping you might explain your rationale.  Thanks.  Chick Bowen 04:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Chick Bowen. Just to let you know that I did read you comment on my page about the Andrade issues and that I shall adress them soon (probably only this weekend, though, as I am without time at present). I assure you that there are good reasons for what I did and also that I hadn't finished doing everything. Of course you might come to desagree with me... I'll get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks! The Ogre 01:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Chick Bowen. Sorry for the delay. I've changed stuff in the Andrade article and made Andrade (disambiguation) a redirect page to the main article, since it concerns only people with the surname Andrade that are already listed in the main one. What do you think? The Ogre 19:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your message, and for keeping me up to date.  The edits to the main part of Andrade are great--that was a skimpy article, and you've improved it enormously and given a good sense of the family.  However--and I'm sorry about this--I'm afraid I still don't see the point of merging Andrade (disambiguation) into it.  It seems like it gives the impression that someone like Mário Pinto de Andrade is a member of that family.  In fact, now that you've expanded Andrade, I've even more convinced that the disambig. page should be separate, so as not to distract from the content on the Andrade page--this is what disambig pages are for: to separate between pages that are purely for finding an article a reader is looking for from pages that give specific information (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation.  However, I'm not going to revert unless I hear from you--I can still be persuaded, of course.  You might want to bring someone else into the conversation, too.  You could ask User:Redwolf24, for example--he's always around and has expressed an opinion on disambig pages before, I belive.  Chick Bowen 19:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi again Chick Bowen. You're right, so I've reverted the changes to Andrade (disambiguation) and removed all those people from the article Andrade. There's really no need to discuss who is a member of the family or not. Let's just say that the disambiguation page is a list of people and the main article is on the origins of the family. Do you think it's ok now? The Ogre 19:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think this is the clearest way.  Thanks again for consulting me on this--I appreciate it.  Best, Chick Bowen 20:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation and expansion

message: The Los_Algodones%2c_Baja_California article mentions Andrade%2c California, which has no article.
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta  | [[ %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  -]] 04:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[California]]