Vfd for Disambiguation PagesEdit

These pages only link to two pages and as such are not needed (a small disambig note is sufficient). Once deleted one of the two (most popular/first/most likely to be looked-for) could be moved to the spot, with a disambig note on top of course.

Added after Gvsualan's vote:

This information was added after my comment below:

About half-way through making this I realized some of the problems inherent in deleting all of these without checking, so if any admin deletes these they should check the page first (they have to anyway).--Tim Thomason 19:36, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC) (finished 21:42, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC))

  • Keep some, delete others...: I disagree with a majority of these, as who is to decide which gets the main entry and who gets second prize, when there is two equally referenced terms, like Argo, as they were both heavily referenced terms in their respective episode/movie(s). Or for that matter, when someone searches for Central Command, the first page that comes up should be the disambiguation link to inform them that there is more than one "Central Command", or more than one reference to pretty much everything else that otherwise requires a qualifier. Class F needs to stay because it was created to replace the sorta canon, but not referenced on TV planetary class designation. Bennett and Bennet are necessary to differientiate two different individuals ... as again, who is to decide which gets the main entry and who gets second prize? --Alan del Beccio 21:03, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I should have been more descriptive. All of the disambigs have only two people mentioned, and a disambig note at the top of each of the pages (for most, some that link together already aren't needed) would be suffice. If someone was to search for "Central Command" they would get the search results which show both in the "Article title matches" section. I'm just trying to revamp the disambiguations, which some have had problems with lately.--Tim Thomason 21:18, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Again, most of these two people mentioned disambiguations are exactly why we have disambiguation pages. In most all the the cases presented, there is no single name that supercedes the other, so the establishment of disambiguation page is necessary to 'define that difference in a structured atmosphere (article) to terms that are otherwise unstructured when relying on "Article title matches". --Alan del Beccio 22:01, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • You're right, I've been a little overzealous about the whole "fixing disambigs" thing lately. And I hate to have people repeat things to me (I like to think I'm smarter than that). I've tried taking away some of the articles you worked on. I still think a good majority of the above articles are still unneeded, but I guess that should be tken on a case-to-case basis. One question though, should the articles link to the disambig (if there are only two articles on the disambig) or should they link to the corresponding article? I've seen both done, and think they should link to there corresponding article.--Tim Thomason 22:22, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
          • I think, to defend your "there are only two articles", that linking one to the other in the actual page (see what I recently did with "Chandra (Captain)" and "Chandra (Wadi)") makes sense, with the disambig page linked only to the "list of disambig pages". As for individuals with 3 or more similar names, they should contain links to the disambig page (as I did with Brand), rather than creating a long list of "see also's" at the top of the page. Most of this can be interpreted from Memory Alpha: Disambiguation -- in terms of not making the disambig page an orphan, but not sending a reader to the disambig page when there is only one other name linked on it that could otherwise be listed on the only other article page with a shared name. --Alan del Beccio 22:41, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Ops is a perfect example of a case where two things are just as likely to be called it (and in this case neither is technically called ops in its full title)... So I agreewith Gvsualan's approach. Weyoun 21:29, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus.--Alan del Beccio 09:45, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

mixed styles Edit

This page is a mix of "Enterprise, USS" under "E" and USS Enterprise under "U". Which one should it use? --Bp 11:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a list of page titles, so it should probably have "USS Enterprise" at "U", not at "E". -- Cid Highwind 12:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree. When I worked through it, cleaning it up and adding descriptions to all of the sub-pages, I thought that I'd gotten all of those. I must've missed a few along the way. Whoops. -- Sulfur 14:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)