9,379 Pages

Shouldnt this be a disambig page? This Jennie, Jenny McGill, Jenny Dodge, Jenny Levine, Jenny Gago... SignorSimon 07:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I didn't make it one because I was unsure what position Proudhug took on this topic and I didn't want to rock the boat.
The aversion he (and one of the older, inactive users, if I remember correctly) seemed to have against adding (Day X) tags to the back of a first-name-only character (when character appear later with that name and a surname) was always odd to me. I believe that assigning through necessity a replacement last name for those who don't have one is a very encyclopedic and thorough thing to do. It may be annoying to add that "|" pipe when linking to them, but so is rolling out of bed in the morning. I'll fix this one here if Proudhug sounds off in the affirmative. – Blue Rook 21:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)talkcontribs
Near as I can tell, this is the only "Jennie," so why would we make it a disambiguation page? If we ever need a disambiguation page for "Jenny" this one can included, and vice versa, since it's helpful, but currently there aren't any other Jennies, so I'd keep it as is for now.
The problem with the proposal you make, Rook, is that it's not disambiguating anything. "Bob" and "Bob Smith" are two distinct names, unlike "Bob" and "Bob", which would need a disambiguation page and tags added to the title. By your rule, if we had two different characters named "Brian Austin" and "Brian Austin Green", we'd make "Brian Austin" a disambiguation page and change the first character's article to "Brian Austin (Day X)," which seems unnecessarily convoluted. Or if we had "Jane Smith" and "Jane Smithee" would we make "Jane Smith" a disambiguation page and change the first article to "Jane Smith (Day X)"? In my opinion, unless a two articles can possibly share the exact same name, we don't need disambiguation pages or tags. Italic notes at the top of pages is fine for items which may cause confusion, however, such as Harry Barnes and Harris Barnes. --Proudhug 15:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not really my proposal, it's the current standard and has no flaws as I can see. I'm perfectly fine with leaving pages like Jennie's alone however, since the MoS as stated in its own introduction is certainly not Policy and exceptions like this are not a problem at all. Those rules you thought of and applied by extension are of course silly extrapolations that I wouldn't take seriously myself either. These guidelines permit for exceptions; things like policy never do unless clearly stated. – Blue Rook 19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)talkcontribs
I don't see it as a silly extrapolation. Both the "Bob" example and the "Brian Austin" example are merely adding one word to the name. My hope is that we can make article naming part of the policy. --Proudhug 19:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Those were silly because they were treating a guideline like an inflexible policy. As it stands, the MoS is a list of guidelines, and those examples you made up would obviously be exceptions under these circumstances.
With reference to changing the circumstances, I wouldn't be opposed at all to incorporating the MoS as a subchapter of Policy. This would also necessitate a rewriting of the MoS introduction paragraph, of course, and some reorganization on the Wiki 24 template. Let me know if you'd like me to go ahead with those two things. I recommend we absorb the MoS as a subchapter of Policy to expedite this all, and then worry about changing the policy for disambigging. – Blue Rook 00:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)talkcontribs
I guess I've always treated the MoS as policy, even though it's never been included there. When the introductory paragraph was written, the site was still new and it was expected that much of the MoS would change (and did, of course). Now that we've been around for nearly three years, most of our "rules" have settled into the larger consensus. Obviously, we still have policy amendments, but major ones are pretty rare anymore. So I'm all for assimilating the MoS into policy. This doesn't, of course, solve our disambigging problem (I'm in love with that word!), but I definitely feel it's progressive. --Proudhug 02:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Besides defending the idea of incorporating the MoS officially into Policy, my opinions as found in the prior posts on this page regarding the process of disambiguating have largely changed. Interested readers should check out Forum:Manual of Style disambiguation changes proposal for the latest on this. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 06:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.