Talk:Congo

message: :Many ethnic groups (eg. Bakongo and Lingala speaking people) live in both in both countries. See also Kongo Empire. Soukous music originated in towns in both Congos.  When referring to both of them, the term "The Congos" is often used. Sometimes when "Congolese" is mentioned, it refers to both countries, or only one of them. So when Congolese is disambiguated to Democratic Republic of the Congo, it could be misleading. Maybe this could be explained on this page. --Ezeu 09:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  3y5m after. There are and will be two Congo-states, so we cannot solve it here om Wikipedia. Full stop. Three years on, I disamiguated once more :-). I used: pointing to the two countries, introduced Congo for all undecided country-issues. Could also mean both countries (and don't forget Angola Cabinda). Made an extra redirectpage for this one link. Now there are 80 links there. This is as far as we can go now. In three years, it'll be allright then. :-) -DePiep (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: unsectioned conversations that need section headers to get recognized by bots

message: Okay, I've been bold and created Congo (disambiguation), and tidied up as I thought best, including moving interlanguage links to the dab page, since they all seemed to be dabs themselves.   Let's collaborate till we all agree on what belongs where.  Once that's settled, perhaps we can work together on tidying up Special:Whatlinkshere/Congo.  Fair enough?  — Catherine\talk 19:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Catherine, well done. / Ezeu 00:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congo (disambiguation) created 

message: Today I created the article Congo (region) mainly because I felt that it was missing from Template:Regions of the world. Only afterwards did I discover that Congo already exists, but that this article seems to restrict itself to dealing solely with the two Congos, and not the wider, vaguer subregion. What is the preferred option now: should Congo me merged with Congo (region) and redirect to Congo (disambiguation) instead? Please have your say here. Thanks.
And a related issue: I would argue that the UN designation Middle Africa - which currently redirects to Central Africa - is the least ambiguous name for the region, as listed at Template:Africa, just like Southern Africa is used to effectively disambiguate from South Africa. Please respond here. Thanks! // Big Adamsky  • BA's talk page 10:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomenclature: ''Congo Region'' and ''Middle Africa''

message: According to Zaire article "Zaire (spelled Zaïre in French) was the name of the Democratic Republic of the Congo between October 27, 1971, and May 17, 1997." 204.19.245.112 06:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zaire from 1999-2005? 

message: Although I can see that there was a theoretical reason for retaining this overview as well as the disambig page, in practice I don't think it adds anything to the functions already covered by the disambig page. It's really just a list of articles, and the disambig plus the articles themselves provide all you need. Furthermore is a user is looking for the music 'Congo' or 'Congo' the movie and they just type in 'Congo', they have to go through two pages before they hit it.  Rexparry sydney 12:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose deletion of this page and redirect to Congo (disambiguation) 

message: There is no clothing section and kids need to know this for progects —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atrain 1008 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kids need to go to the library. --Ezeu 20:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:     Nonsense. While the role of the accompanying Dab page is to help users navigate to pages they could reasonably hope to find at "Congo", any info on Congo-typical clothing that could appear in a library is more than likely to be suitable for a WP article like Clothing of tropical Africa, or a section tropical Africa#Cultural patterns, and to the extent that styles are national rather than trans-nationally regional, articles or sections specific to countries.   (However, the accompanying Dab page should not link to those articles or sections, since users seeking an article that could reasonably be titled "Congo" would be obstructed by entries for articles far too specialized for that title. List of Congo topics, List of African topics, or something similar might do so.)--Jerzy•t 23:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is clothing 

message: The page is tagged now with "many incoming links". Just to help any researcher-editor: most of the ambiguous links come from articles meaning a country Congo, but difficult to determine which country. Also the mening Congo-region (or Congo-basin) is used very often this way. These links mainly come here via the redirection-page "Congo (country)", so as to specify the ambiguity (we want to keep that redirect). Your faithful dab-researcher here in April 2009, -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For a 32-year period beginning in 1965, there was only one nation using "Congo" or "Republic of the Congo" in its name.  Even now, 14 years after Zaire changed its name to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it seems a pretty safe bet that when one uses "the Congo" to refer specifically to one of these 2 countries, they are thinking of the geographcially smaller, more westerly of the two, the one with its capital at Brazzaville.  Similarly, if one is thinking of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the former Zaire, with its capital at Kinshasa), they would say the full name of the country, or in some way make it clear which one is meant.  For example, FIFA recognizes the country names as "Congo" and "Congo DR". So, I propose changing the redirect page at Congo (country) so that it points to Republic of the Congo instead of to this disambiguation page. That article already has a hatnote pointing out the similarly named country.  Thoughts? LarryJeff (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Another example, Google Maps labels the 2 countries "Congo" and "Democratic Republic of the Congo".  LarryJeff (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tomorrow I'll have more time to react (hey, that's nearing two years after my post here ;-) But I remember my arguments). In general: "a pretty safe bet" won't do to declare that an editor meant "Congo-Brazzaville""when writing "Congo". No. It depends on the source, and the source may be unclear (C-Brazzaville, C-Kinshasa, C-region, C-basin?: any area in the Congo (disambiguation)-places could be meant). Congo (country) may include Angola's Cabinda. The sources can be very old: missionaries, history books, botanic researchers, and unconclusive. Just take a look at some 5 or 10 (at random) "Congo countries" from the list: most aren't and won't be clear about the place "Congo". I must say: on every wikipage related to "Congo" a lot is happening (that is good). So I might be outdated. -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (updated 6h later on for readibility & more), -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you there are cases where we just can't be sure what the intended reference is.  However, in those cases, I don't think the Congo (country) link should be used; instead change those to point directly to the disambig page (with a "dn" tag) so hopefully someone with knowledge of the subject will notice and correct it.  Then Congo (country) can be redirected to the Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville) article. LarryJeff (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind getting rid of the "Congo (country)" intermediate redirect (although it was created to maintain the information we are talking about: this is why redirects are kept!). But I do object to concluding that in such situation "Congo Brazzaville" is intended. Exactly for not knowing which country, it has that redirect (or should redirect to Congo for disambiguation). Again, it can only be determined through the source, not by someones guessing. (See the editsummary of my edits when I linked to that redirect: "country undecided" here, look for April 10.) -DePiep (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many incoming links from ''a'' country Congo 

message: Could the location (on the page) be switched: geo-map with two Congo's top, and the TOC (with pagedetails) below? -DePiep (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map TOC and geographic: switch 

message: Congo (area) should be merged into the similar but much older and more comprehensive dab page at Congo. As it stands, "Congo (area)" is largely duplicating a part of "Congo", and whilst it is claimed to be a stub, it is in fact just a dab page, without a clear justification for a separate article. Green Giant (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Congo means many things. Congo, as an area, is more than administrative countries, it can be seen as a region not only due to the basin of Congo river. I think that it must be maintained. Even being a stub. A disambiguation page is a simple page to help redirect users to specific articles who share the same name, not for developing contents. I think that this "disambig" page must be cleared in order to improve the article about the region, transfering information at the specific article from "disambig" page.  --Bestiasonica (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Oppose - This is not a particularly good article, but it is an article nonetheless, not a disambiguation page. Articles should not link to disambiguation pages. Links to Congo would normally be disambiguated to one of the two country articles, but in many cases the context refers to the area as a whole - those would disambiguate to here. If this is merged into Congo then all of those links (approx 100) will need to be disambiguated again, but this time there would be nowhere appropriate for them to point. Bazonka (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Addressing some concerns by other colleagues, I have now considerably expanded :Congo (area) as I originally said I intended to do when I established the page. Please refer to the page and feel free to make more improvements wherever needed. werldwayd (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: There seems to be contradicting MOS-guidelines here.
* MOS:DABNAME says names should "be added below the main disambiguation list"
* MOS:DABGROUPING says "entries which do not fit neatly into any section should be placed in an "Other uses" section or subsection, at the bottom of the page or section (but above any "See also" section)".
Logically, the words "other uses" indicated nothing above applies. Having people listed below such a section is locally wrong. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My take is that the surname/given name sections are kind of a special consideration because they technically shouldn't be included at all, as they're partial title matches. But at some point the decision was made to include them anyway, just underneath all the entries that might commonly be known by just the disambiguated term alone. This ordering is definitely supported by those on the disambiguation project. I wish I could find the example template we have going...  -- Fyrael (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not seem to be reflected in the Manual of Style... Given that these two are in contradiction of each other, and (a) logic is that "Other = not suitable in any other section above"; and (b) MOS:DABGROUPING specifically says it should be above the See also section, while MOS:DABNAME only says after the main list, I would argue that my edit is correct. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My version doesn't conflict with anything in (b) and for (a), again, these are technically partial title matches that are being given special consideration in order to appear on the page at all. But looking through the DAB project talk there's been a few lengthy discussions over the topic, with some favoring my position, some yours, some wanting the names actually in See also, and others not wishing to include them on the page except by way of an anthroponymy link. The "example template" I was talking about earlier is at Wikipedia:Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area and actually advocates for that last position, which I didn't think was the case. At any rate, it's not super important and I won't revert if you want to move it again, but please leave the title of the section as is. It shouldn't be called just People. -- Fyrael (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the header title, that was my bad. I simply undid your edit (and then copy+pasted it to where I wanted) in order to ping you when doing the edit, and missed that you had changed it from "People". I'm not gonna revert you right now, since I don't really mind one way or another, just wanted to hash out why our opinions differed on the MoS. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order