 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Merge with Variag ? Bukvoed 17:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. Súrendil 20:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Single dab page edit
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I suggest retaining individual ship pages and a single dab page, Varyag. Finavon (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:55, April 23, 2009 (UTC)- Changing to oppose—I overlooked the fact that the ships pages are sets, not dabs.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:04, April 23, 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose on proceedural grounds due to the differences between disambiguation pages and set index pages. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good point about set index pages. I accept that a merge may not be appropriate, but do we really need 8 pages (5 individual, 2 set index and 1 dab) about just 5 ships? Finavon (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- While not especially common, it is not without precedent. As an example, Enterprise is the main disambiguation page for that topic, while ships of the Royal Navy are listed at the set index page HMS Enterprise, ships of the United States Navy are at USS Enterprise, and Star Trek ships at Starship Enterprise. All four pages are named as per WP:DABNAME which requires the disambiguation page to be titled after the ambiguous term itself. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to merge just the two set indices on ships to Cruiser Varyag? I don't know how well it conforms to the naming rules for the ship articles, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:46, April 23, 2009 (UTC)
- The current pages are named following the naming convention, WP:NC-SHIP. These pages really are not that different from any of the other 3,402 set indices on ships. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I see the multiple pages are probably inevitable within this system - Antrim and Avenger are more examples. There is nothing to be gained by deviating from convention. The difference here is that the dab page lists little more than the ships (aggravated by the "prefixes" "Russian cruiser" and "Soviet cruiser"). The general dab page helps find the articles without knowing the ship prefix. It looks better with headings and links to the two set index pages. Finavon (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- The current pages are named following the naming convention, WP:NC-SHIP. These pages really are not that different from any of the other 3,402 set indices on ships. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.