Talk:Pre-Indo-European

message: Should a discussion of the Uralic peoples be included here?  It's my understanding that the Sami_people have lived in Scandanavia since well before Germanic settlement there.  And of course Russia west of the Urals has been populated by various Uralic peoples since well before Slavic settlement...   --Blackcats 18:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Should Picts be included? --Error 01:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just came to ask the exact same question. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: imho, this article is inherently broken due to its title. It should redirect to Old European culture — seriously, the two articles treat the same topic, and "Old European" is the better term, since it is not as misleading ("Pre-Indo-European" in principle could also refer to India or the Americas). dab (ᛏ) 18:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with a redirect, as soon as all pertinent info is worked into Old European Culture. In other words, most of the groups mentioned here need to be mentioned there. Decius 02:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Picts

message: *On 9 June 2005 the content of this article was merged into Old European culture and this article was replaced with a redirect to that article.
*Several editors objected to the redirect. (See Talk:Neolithic Europe#The term "Old Europe".) So on 11 July 2005 Old European culture was merged into Neolithic Europe.
*On 9 March 2006 this article was recreated with content describing Gimbutas’s “Old Europe” hypothesis.
*On 5 November 2007 that article was renamed to Old European culture and the content prior to the 9 June 2005 merge was restored.
--teb728 22:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article history 

message: I see my move to Pre-Indo-European related topics has been reverted. I made the move because although this page claims to be a dab page it clearly isn't because none of the articles are actually called "Pre-Indo-European" therefore there is nothing to disambiguate. The alternatives as I see it are a redirect or deletion .... or change it to a list as I advise. Maybe you prefer List of Pre-Indo-European related topics but I strongly suggest you adopt the list form rather than dab. But hey I don't decide these things. :) Abtract (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it is a disambiguation page, becase "Pre-Indo-European" may refer to any of the topics linked to. See, the articles aren't called "Pre-Indo-European", but a link to Pre-Indo-European may refer to any of them depending on context. "List of ... topics" titles are a very bad idea, incidentially, and belong in Portal: namespace, as in Portal:Contents. This isn't a list article, and there I can see no conceivable scope for one. A discussion of "Pre-Indo-European" topics in context would belong under a title of Indo-Europeanization or similar. dab (𒁳) 18:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Going by the way wikipedia defines a disambiguation page this is not one.  From WP:DAB; Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different article pages which could, in principle, have the same title.  So since Neolithic Europe could have had the title Pre-Indo-European it is an apropriate entry. Whereas the same could not be said about Pre-Roman peoples of the Iberian Peninsula, so this entry is inapropriate.  Taemyr (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: This disambiguates three truly different issues:
#pre-Proto-Indo-European (linguistic)
#Indo-European substrate hypotheses (linguistic) -- currently no central article (Substrates in Indo-European languages??) hence the sublist
#the archaeological connection to Neolithic Europe according to Gimbutas in particular (Old European culture, Kurganization)
all three topics may be casually referred to by "pre-Indo-European", depending on context. I don't see the problem, and hence don't understand why the page is marked for cleanup. --dab (𒁳) 18:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read mos:dab and you will then understand why it needs cleanup. Abtract (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you avoid patronizing me. Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term. This is exactly what this page is for. Try to understand a topic before you get all argumentative, or, more embarassingly, condescending. --dab (𒁳) 07:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the cleanup tag back on the page.  Regardless of whether these various links should all appear on this page or not, the fact is that the page doesn't follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) at all.   There's a format that disambig pages should follow, with an introductory line, with one blue link per entry, each on its own line, and so on. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation