Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 21

message: An entry was recently added to a disambiguation page I created, Nerf (disambiguation), referring to the fictional Star Wars creature by the name. While the creature does not have an article, it is mentioned in List of Star Wars creatures. I'm just wondering what the appropriate way to link to this would be, whether it should be treated the same as an entry with its own article or as a redlinked entry. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 06:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this is covered by MoS:DP#URL anchor notation —Duckbill 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Right. I've made an edit which I think brings it closer to MoS:DP —Duckbill 20:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, good call. Thanks for the help. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 00:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting with entries mentioned in lists 

message: I was wondering whether it might be a good idea to set up a notice board distinct from this guideline, so that this talk page could become a place only for discussing possible changes to the guideline, and a distinct page might be used as a place for people to come ask questions about specific cases. We do this with other issues, such as fair use and biographies of living people. - Jmabel | Talk 19:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It strikes me as a spectacularly good idea. Chris the speller 20:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe a distinct noticeboard page for discussing specific issues? 

message: There is an extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) which in part depends on whether this paragraph 
:Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? (For example, when someone looks up Joker, would they find information on a comedian? On a card? On Batman's nemesis? On the hit song or album by The Steve Miller Band?) When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page.
does, or is intended to, rule out the use for all United States placenames of Pacific Grove, California, even when Pacific Grove would be unambiguous. (All United States articles use the state name, with a handful of exceptions for cities as well-known as Philadelphia or Los Angeles, which are primary usage.) If this is intended, this page should say so explicitly; if it is not intended, the paragraph above should be clarified, for example, by adding 
:Some Wikipedia articles follow systematic naming conventions; if there is one, it should normally be followed. For example, placenames in the United States usually have both town and state, like Pacific Grove, California; rulers usually include the name of their country, like Richard I of England; articles about a species under its Linnaean name include both species and genus, even where a shorter form would be technically unambiguous. Naming conventions are listed at WP:NC
Comments? Septentrionalis 21:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I commented there, I understand that the phrase on this page is not providing guidance with respect to how an article should be named. It is providing guidance on deciding whether two (or more) potentially ambiguous topics need to be disambiguated (and whether links to the topics should appear on a disambiguation page or in disambiguating notes at the top of an article. There are other naming conventions which prescribe including additional information in the title, even when it is not needed for disambiguation (e.g., conventions for royalty/peerage, for U.S. state highways, for naval vessels). older ≠ wiser 21:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Settlements

message: FYI — I've started a discussion about potentially orphaning Template:About and recruiting it as the new title for Template:This article is about at Template talk:This article is about. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates: 'This article is about' vs. 'About' 

message: There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style %28Japan-related articles%29#Designated cities concerning ambiguous or misdirected links and City, State naming formats. Some cities which are at simple names (e.g. Kyoto) are receiving many links intended for the state named after them (e.g. Kyoto Prefecture). However, because the governments of the cities are not subordinate to the governments of the prefectures, City, State is considered an inaccurate page name for the city in these cases. Please stop by and leave comments on this problem. Dekimasu 02:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No comments in five days... please stop by and give advice on this matter. Dekimasu 03:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment at MOS-JP 

message: Now that it has sophisticated enough syntax to handle pretty much all cases, I've redirected  to a special case of .  This should make it easier to keep things standardized, since there'll only be one place to edit. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Otheruses4]] has taken over the world 

message: There is an ongoing dispute and revert war about the status of Flemish. The page has been a normal language/ethnicity* until this summer, when it was rather suddenly and without any discussion turned into a half-article, half-dabpage trying to make a very holistic description of "Flemish" as both a word, concept and dialect all at once. This was done by several users, but without any discussion which has resulted in a very confused pseudo-article that states no sources, elaborates on pure dictionary definitions and appears to complicate the topic unnecessarily. There have been reverts and re-reverts, including my attempt to find a compromise by acting on the suggestion by User:Rex Germanus to establish a Flemish (terminology), similar to Macedonia (terminology), but this was also also rather aggressively reverted. The content insisted on primarily by User:SomeHuman is rather confusing to anyone who isn't familiar with the topic (almost everyone outside of Belgium or the Netherlands).
I would appreciate some comments on this issue since I believe that there are few, if any, good arguments for exception to the more or less universal rule about language/ethnicity-adjectives being dabpages rather than semi-articles. The discussion is currently being conducted at Talk:Flemish (terminology).
*Yes, I'm aware that the status of Flemish as a separate language is controversial, and I believe it's more accurate to describe it as a dialect, but it's still a fairly distinct linguistic entity, analogous to, say, Scottish and deserves the same disambiguation as English, Chinese or Scanian.
Peter Isotalo 17:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flemish 

message: What is the correct way to disambiguate here? Soil can also mean the band SOiL. I think that should be at the top, but another editor has created a disambiguation page with just the two meanings on. Is there a preferred way here? If there are only two meanings to a word, is it appropriate to just place a disambig link to the other meaning or is a completely separate disambig page the way to go? exolon 03:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your interpretation is correct.  Stick the hatnote link to SOiL back into the article Soil and, after checking the What links here page, put Soil (disambiguation) up for deletion (can't remember which deletion process you use for this one).  Neonumbers 10:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, done both. exolon 16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RE : "put Soil (disambiguation) up for deletion (can't remember which deletion process you use for this one)" - I used  - this is for "Other non-controversial "housekeeping" tasks, such as reversing a redirect or deleting a disambiguation page that only points to a single article. exolon 02:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for the info.  Neonumbers 03:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Fixed that one too. exolon 02:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Soil]] 

message: Is there a reason why the disambig templates look like regular text now?  Not indented nor italicised like they used to be?  They look rather nondescript and they look like they're the first sentence in the article now.  --MPD (T / C) 19:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to purge your cache. The disambiguation templates have been modified to used CSS styles more effectively rather than relying on in-line wiki markup. older ≠ wiser 19:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  --MPD (T / C) 20:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style issues