Talk:Phoenix/Archive 1

message: Phoenix is now a disambiguation page, per the disambig Manual of Style (don't have Foo redirect to Foo (disambiguation), do it the other way around); Phoenix (bird) has been moved back to Phoenix (mythology), as it's not a real bird, either. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links set in accordance with disambig MoS

message: I think Phoenix should be about the mythical bird. Looking at it from a universal perspective, most people when they hear the word Phoenix will think of the mythological Phoenix, and I think that's what should be at Phoenix. I appreciate that Phoenix, Arizona is a great city, but Phoenix, Arizona is the proper name for that article, as it's general naming policy for city articles to include the full state name as well (such as Louisville, Kentucky or Providence, Rhode Island. Therefore Phoenix should not be the article about the city in Arizona, as that is somewhere else. Phoenix (mythology) should move to Phoenix, and Phoenix should move to Phoenix (disambiguation). BD2412 is right that Foo should not redirect to Foo (disambiguation), but the solution is not to move Foo (disambiguation) to Foo but rather to move the proper meaning (say, Foo (Computer Science)) to Foo and keep the disambiguation page where it is. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've thought about this back and forth, and I disagree based on the sheer number of links I've had to clean up here which should have led to Phoenix or Phoenix or even Phoenix. There are just too many uses, and too much potential for argument between the ancient myth and one of the fastest-growing cities in the U.S. as the primary use for a given population. bd2412 T 06:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Disambig 

message: Who is this pesky anon who keeps removing the easy-to-find entries for the two main meanings from the top of the article? If he is capable of explaining his actions, why does he think that the point of a disambiguation page is to make it hard for readers to find the meaning they most probably had in mind when they typed in "Phoenix"?
Henning Makholm 16:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should follow the example of Aurora. Phoenix, Arizona was named after the mythical bird, and anyone who is looking for the city can find it easily as the first entry under Places. BTW, I added the wiktionary link and moved the TOC to the right a few edits ago. -- Usgnus 16:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The example of Aurora is to give the main meaning at the top, rather than expecting all users to dig for it in a big long list of minor meanings. It is unclear to me how the fact that the mythical bird is the eventual origin or most of the other uses is an argument that the mythical bird and the city in the USA should be hard to find for users who just type in "Phoenix". Henning Makholm 16:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There no such argument. The page should have the origin of the word Phoenix at the top and then the sections. Every use of the word is related to the mythological creature; that is why I mentioned that the city is named after the creature -- the context is appropriate. And that is why I used the example of Aurora. Why you think the city hard to find? Everyone looking for the city knows it's a Place and will look there. I think perhaps you might be overestimating the notability of the city. -- Usgnus 17:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I was fine with your version. Usgnus 17:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you are confusing Wikipedia with an etymological dictionary. It is not. But that is not the point -- I am not arguing that the bird is a lesser meaning at all. I get the feeling that you think I am trying to emphasize the city at the expense of the bird; I am not, and I have no particular personal preference between the two. But it is a fact that both are meanings that many users see as "the" meaning of phoenix, and there are few, if any, users who think that anything else in the list is a primary meaning of the word. It appears that you have something deeply against the Arizonan city, to the extent that you are willing to make it more difficult for everybody to find what they're looking for, just so the city is not easily findable. That is not a sound principle for arranging a disambiguation page. Henning Makholm 17:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are mistaking me for another user. The only edits I have made to the page have either left the city at its existing prioritization or have improved its visibility:   . I am arguing that the city is very easy to find now and does not need to be featured in the same way the firebird should be. Remember, I have no problem with the city being featured at the top. I just think it's unnecessary. -- Usgnus 18:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My apologies. I think I assumed that you were the reverting anon who had registered to participate properly in the discussion. In any case, what I am concerned about are non-sophisticated users who come to Wikipedia just to answer "Who is the mayor of Phoenix?" or "The phoenix was a female bird, right?", and then get dumped into a long list of a gazillion strange meanings. They would be better helped if we tell them up front: You probably came here for either phoenix (mythology) or Phoenix, Arizona. Then we could also have a more systematic arrangement of the auxiliary meanings, not having to artificially move "places" and "mytology" forward simply becuase they happen to contain the two most common meanings. Henning Makholm 18:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have anything against Phoenix, AZ per se and I have never reverted sensible attempts to give prominence to that meaning, such as those taken by Usgnus.  In fact, I moved the Places section near the top myself to make it easier to find.  Listing is as a main meaning of the word is, however, completely inappropriate. 194.203.110.127 07:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is "completely inappropriate" about listing the main meanings as main meanings? I fail to see how you can think so if you are not conducting a vendetta against the city. Henning Makholm 00:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody wants to make the main meanings hard to find 

message: Since things seem to be getting rather heated, I think we should try and establish firm consensus.
Please sign your name (~~~~) beneath one option. --Eyrian 19:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me clarify: I don't mind if you add the two references to the top of the page while we're trying to reach consensus; I just don't want you to do it by reverting to an older version without incorporating the other changes unrelated to this discussion. -- Usgnus 04:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Since the bird is the origin of the name, the writing will flow more nicely if it is left first. --Eyrian 03:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone point to style guide that says a disambiguation page can list the origin (fair enough) and other random uses out of context at the top of the list?  194.203.110.127 09:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, right here. Also, chill out, man. You're acting really obnoxious. --Eyrian 13:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything in the WP:MoS that explains why Phoenix, Arizona should be treated differently to Phoenix, New York, for example.  Isn't New York far better known than Arizona anyway?  194.203.110.127 11:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The state of New York is perhaps better known than Arizona (though I wouldn't bet on it; outside America it is common for people to have heard ot New York City but have only hazy ideas, if any, that there is a state of that name that is not coincident with NYC). However, that does not matter here. It is beyond argument that among the Phoenixes in different places, the Arizona one is the best known by several orders of magnitude. That city is one of the two main meanings of "Phoenix" however loudly you attempt to deny it. Henning Makholm 11:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a place named after the Phoenix: nothing more.  How can that possibly be a main meaning with any kind of parity to the origin of the word?  194.203.110.127 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And in addition to being named after the mythological bird, it is also one of the more common referents of the term. You ask How can that possibly be a main meaning with any kind of parity to the origin of the word? -- Simple, many millions of people associate the term primarily with the city. It may be difficult for you to admit that, but that is simply a reflection of current usage. I'd suggest moving on and trying to help build an encyclopedia rather than waste more time beating a dead horse. older ≠ wiser 16:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seeking Consensus

message: Bkonrad stated in one of his edit summaries original meaning? it was the Greek term for a colour, which they applied to the Egyptian mythical creature.  If this can be confirmed then this origin of the word should surely take prominence above the mythical firebird and any places?  194.203.110.127 10:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the account given in Phoenix (mythology). I don't think there is any need to elaborate on the original meanings of words on a disambiguation page. That information is more appropriate for articles or Wiktionary. older ≠ wiser 12:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come on: if Phoenix, Arizona gets up there, surely the origin of the word deserves a mention?  194.203.110.127 14:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the common uses of the term? Does ANYONE currently use the term to describe Phoenicia or the color purple? That is etymology, NOT disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 14:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the word

message: There are a lot of entries for thing whose name merely contains the word Phoenix (e.g.: films, books, sports teams, a university).  As this dab page is already too long, I would be grateful if anyone could tell me if any of these are actually commonly referred to as Phoenix (on its own) preferably providing references for this.  If not, I will start commenting them out.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 14:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. But perhaps the line isn't quite easy to draw. For example, it seems to me to be fairly common to refer to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix as simply "Phoenix" -- in contexts where it is clear that the Harry Potter series is being talked about. So should the Harry Potter novel be listed? It will only be necessary if somebody used the short form in a context where it is not appropriate, but still innocent readers of such sloppiness might turn to an encyclopedia to figure out what it's about. Henning Makholm 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In general I would suggest leaving notes on the talk pages of the articles whose links you comment out. People who watch the individual pages may be more familiar with what shorthands are in actual use. Henning Makholm 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrases containing Phoenix