| Revision as of 16:03, 30 March 2006 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,550 edits →Title← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:04, 30 March 2006 edit undoCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,550 edits →TitleNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ::--] 05:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC) | ::--] 05:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| It is possible that ambiguous, while probably the best single word to describe the concept, doesn't quite get the message across. Ambiguous doesn't really mean "names that are the same or similar". I suspect the wording was taken from "disambiguation", which means to remove ambiguity. However, it is not the names that are ambiguous, rather the names are imprecise. Maybe this is a confusion arising from the differences between ] and ]. ] 16:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC) | It is possible that ambiguous, while probably the best single word to describe the concept, doesn't quite get the message across. Ambiguous doesn't really mean "names that are the same or similar". I suspect the wording was taken from "disambiguation", which means to remove ambiguity. However, it is not the names that are ambiguous, rather the names are imprecise. Maybe this is a confusion arising from the differences between ] and ]. ] 16:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Disambiguation page styles == | == Disambiguation page styles == | ||
Revision as of 16:04, 30 March 2006
Title
What's an "ambiguous human name"? SlimVirgin 07:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's the style adopted after folks thought that the more accurate "Lists of ... sharing the same title" was too long. That style is seen in roads and highways. Those roads and highways folk tend to favor technicality over convenience (from my view, that's a good thing, but I didn't prevail on that argument for this category). So, they're ambiguous, and human names, and that seems to be enough for most folk.
- I'm sorry, I still don't understand what it refers to. Does it mean people who share the same name, or what? SlimVirgin 00:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Pages with lists of these ambiguous human names are in this category. It's so obvious to me that I'm not understanding the lack of understanding. Look at the lists, perhaps your fresh perspective could write a better description.
It is possible that ambiguous, while probably the best single word to describe the concept, doesn't quite get the message across. Ambiguous doesn't really mean "names that are the same or similar". I suspect the wording was taken from "disambiguation", which means to remove ambiguity. However, it is not the names that are ambiguous, rather the names are imprecise. Maybe this is a confusion arising from the differences between imprecise and ambiguous. Carcharoth 16:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Disambiguation page styles
(Copy of a question I posted at the Misplaced Pages:Help Desk and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biography)
I have been looking at several disambiguation pages for names (to get some ideas following work I did on Ptolemy (disambiguation)), and I've come across pages like Jesus (disambiguation) and Leonardo (disambiguation). Some questions I want to ask:
(1) The Leonardo (disambiguation) page has a bit allowing people to see all articles starting "Leonardo", or rather to see a list of AllPages starting from Leonardo, as seen here. This is the first time I've seen this, though the Leonardo disambiguation talk page led me to Robert, which does look a bit overdone, but also has the "AllPages" link. My question is whether this is a common practice, or whether it falls foul of the "no self-reference" rule about not linking to non-article space in Misplaced Pages (creates problems with mirror/redistribution sites)?
(2) Is is normal to (like I have done with Ptolemy) to arrange the disambiguation page in a historical sense, thus bringing out a narrative about the name throughout history, and tracing the links that sometimes exist, with certain uses of the name being inspired by one Ptolemy, and other uses being inspired by other Ptolemies? I ask this question because I feel a similar reorganisation of the Jesus disambiguation page could help make it easier to read as an article about the history of the name, rather than as a disambiguation page. Note that this could not be done with pages like Robert, as there is no such narrative thread to pull out of the history of the name.
(3) Is there a better place to discuss this?
Thanks. Carcharoth 19:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- I like Ptolemy (disambiguation), but it's much more than an disambiguation page, it's really a summary style or multi-stub page, so it currently shouldn't have the {{disambig}} tag (see Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation).
- (1) No, the allpages list isn't usual. Bad idea. All those pages should be listed on the disambiguation page.
- (2) As with many of the single name pages (Category:Given names and Category:Surnames), split the summary page to Ptolemy (name), leaving only the disambiguation list at "(disambiguation)". Same with Jesus.
- (3) Let's discuss it here for now. Otherwise, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biography seems a good place to discuss the parts regarding (name) pages, while Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) is where to discuss things like the allpages list.
- Keep up the good work!
- Just did the fairly simple spit from Robert to Robert (name) as an example.
- Thanks for the advice and the suggestions about where to discuss things. I'm now losing track of where I asked about this, so I am centralising discussions at Talk:Ptolemy (disambiguation), where I have also summarised the editing and discussion history so far. If you have any more advice or comments, I'd be grateful if you could place them there, as well as saying there where you think discussions of various issues should be taken. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)