Talk:Dragon (disambiguation)

Once more, if a topic would not be refered or linked to solely by the name it should not be listed on a disambiguation page. -- Sine 18:39, 22 December 2013 (EST)
 * The last discussion on names on disambiguation pages was to not include non-first based article names (Tex Avery vs Avery), not all characters, fursonas or users "related" to the name (Bugs Bunny vs Bunny), or by its meaning/definition (Sheila Vixen vs Fox). The example used was Fox on Wikipedia, which, all thought the point was made we didn't need to follow its format verbatim, some of it were agreed on their use, such as:
 * Sections
 * "See also"
 * User species categories [I.e. Category:Dragon characters. See Fox, Rabbit, Wolf, etc...].)
 * Description of species/creature/animal (e.g. Dragon, a creature, typically with serpent or reptilian traits, featured in many cultures' legends), as also used in:
 * Fox: "Fox, a common name for many species of omnivorous mammals belonging to the vulpini tribe of the Canidae family"
 * Wolf: "The wolf (Canis lupus), a carnivore mammal belonging to the Canini tribe of the Canidae family"
 * And, if "a topic would not be refered or linked to solely by the name it should not be listed on a disambiguation page", why would you leave Dragon Flame (artist) in Dragon, but remove Fox Azure, a singer from Fox, and/or remove Dragon Lady, a character in Extinctioners in Dragon, but leave Fox McCloud from Star Fox (again) in Fox.


 * We agreed not to follow some of the formatting rules used by Wikipedia on their disambiguation pages (as in including any article with the "word" in it [i.e 21st Century Fox in Wikipedia's Fox (disambiguation) page]), but some kind of agreed upon final standard/rules would help, since items removed on this page edit (like characters), were not done so on other recent disambiguation pages (Matthew and Matthew Cabbal, a character on LXF: The League of Extraordinary Furries).


 * A revert will be applied to Dragon, if there is no problem, until the format guidelines are clarified. A rule is hard to follow if it's inconsistent. - Spirou 01:22, 23 December 2013 (EST)


 * Here's the reasons I see for the above choices:
 * The article Dragon Flame contains the claim that the subject is "also known simply as Dragon". Whether this is sufficient is debatable; but Dragon Lady does not make that claim, so it is out.
 * Fox is trickier. It comes down to the fact that Fox Azure is not well-known, but Fox McCloud is, and is often referred to just as "Fox" - which again, Fox Azure does not claim.
 * Both of these are dubious, and I'm tempted to remove them. But whether or not they are removed, we shouldn't include topics which are even more dubious just for the sake of having a general rule.
 * (For the record, while 21st Century Fox might not be suitable for fox (disambiguation), I'd support the inclusion of Fox Entertainment Group if we had an article on it, because people call it Fox all the time.) --GreenReaper(talk) 20:23, 16 February 2014 (EST)
 * Thinking about this, I'm tempted to just do the same thing as paw; include the Dragon book series as a hatnote on dragon, and remove this entirely. Is anyone'' reasonably going to link to dragon and mean something else? Edit: OK, so I see Species. Fair enough, though I worry that the wording of Species encourages the kind of issue we see here. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:33, 16 February 2014 (EST)

Disambiguation page format (a first draft proposal to work towards a final set format rule,... if this is ok)
(As per talks, agreements, and personal opinions in the past) Initial note: The basis for Wikifur's disambiguation page are based on the layout and format of Wikipedia's counterpart, but past discussions have pointed out that Wikifur's format does not have to conform to Wikipedia's set standard. what follows are set, set but changed, or inconclusive/not yet agreed upon formatting in relation to these type of special pages.

(1) If common name/term, set as same (e.g. Paw). If a species, title the main article with name, add (disambiguation) to such related page (Wolf and Wolf (disambiguation)). Seems to be an agreed upon format.

(2) A minimum of two exact names/terms are needed to create a disambiguation page. Seemed to be an agreed upon format, but the deletion of Paw trumps this (so back to square one regarding this issue?).

(3) Name layout:

Name may also refer to: (bold first word. Seems to be an agreed upon format)


 * Name, a XXXX (asterix, bold name, person type artist, fursuiter, etc) who lives in Middle earth, USA (if available, location via Wikipedia, plus country [USA, not U.S.A.], no final punctuation)
 * Name, a (book/movie/webcomic) (bold and italize, no final punctuation)

Note A: One Curator has brought the point several times "If a topic would not be refered or linked to solely by the name it should not be listed on a disambiguation page", making corresponding changes. To GreeReaper: Is this final, in debate, or undecided?. Example (Spirit):


 * Spirit, also known as Benjii de Dragon, a furry fan who lives in Saint-Dié-des-Vosges, Lorraine, France
 * Spirit (real name Jordana G.), formerly known as Anima-dos and Spiritto, a European Spanish professional 2D traditional/digital animator who lives in Canada
 * Spirit, also known as Wilde[-lion], a furry fan who lives in North-West London, United Kingdom
 * Spirit, also known as Spiritwolf, a MUCK wizard who lives in the United Kingdom

This is the biggest hot potatoe concerning disambiguation articles right now.

Note B: Description of species/creature/animal (e.g.)


 * Dragon, a creature, typically with serpent or reptilian traits, featured in many cultures' legends (as also used in Fox (disambiguation), Wolf (disambiguation), etc,... Seemed to be an agree upon format, but the bare shortening in the Dragon article trumps this.

(3) Sections: A Wikipedia format, but two curators were for it, one against, no removals have been seen since the discussion, Seems to be an agree upon format.

== People ==, == Characters == , == Entertaiment == , == Media == , == Other uses ==

(4 ) See also. Seems to be an agreed upon format.

(5) User species categories (i.e. Category:Dragon characters. See Fox, Rabbit, Wolf, etc...). Used by various Curator/Conservators, It seemed to be an agreed upon format, but the deletion in the Dragon article trumps this.

(6) template (a Wikia format necessity)

(7) . An agreed upon overall consensus on its use, never brought for debate.

Would it be too forward to suggest that we set the final rules on this ongoing subject?. Everybody involved have had pros and cons suggestions and comments on it, and the partial (ever-changing) use of some of the sister's wikia code is confusing. imho. - Spirou 04:15, 17 February 2014 (EST)


 * We will continue to create disambiguation pages,... and we will still continue to have issues with them. A start of some form of discussion would accomplish something, or we just carry-on being disapproving of any editor's formatting?. - Spirou 04:15, 1 March 2014 (EST)


 * I'm not sure you're ever going to get "final rules" on all of these issues. Whether a particular topic should be mentioned in a disambiguation page, or in a hatnote on that page, or at all, is a matter of opinion, and different people have different opinions. It's like the content of our articles: we don't have rules for when to include a particular type of information because it depends on the context and the educated opinion of the editor concerned. Over time, articles of a similar type tend to include similar kinds of information; but that arises through individual edits, not by setting rules about what articles should contain and then making all articles comply with those rules.


 * Take this, for example: "A minimum of two exact names/terms are needed to create a disambiguation page." Do you take that to mean "if there are at least two subjects that could be confused, we should create a disambiguation page"? If so, I disagree with that interpretation, based on Paw. In that particular case, it seemed sufficient to have one page, and put any disambiguation at the top or within it, for the reasons I outlined on Talk:Paw. Conversely, for more general names such as Growly where editors determine that there is no primary subject, it may make perfect sense to use a disambiguation page even if there are only two things to disambiguate. In other cases, it may make sense to evolve from having a hatnote to an disambiguation page, or vice versa.


 * Inclusion is a judgement call to be made on an individual basis, based on knowledge of the subject. For example, SpiritRaptor should probably not be included on Spirit because he consistently uses either his full name, or the initials SR. SpiritWolven is harder. It seems that the subject uses "Spirit" as a shorthand, but that the full name of the character is SpiritWolven. I could go either way. And that is the reality: there are many cases in which it will not be clear whether or not to include a subject, and those may require discussion.


 * I think it's great to standardize the naming of, formatting, and means of linking to species disambiguation pages, but whether they are used should remain a matter of editorial discretion and debate. In the case of species like Dragon, there will normally be a primary article about the species. The question that arises is whether the items to be disambiguated justify a separate page. If it is reasonable not to create such a page, but to deal with them within the primary page, I think we should do that.


 * The reason I discourage the use of disambiguation pages except where truly necessary is that disambiguation is, essentially, overhead. Sometimes, it is essential overhead. But if editors spend time making long lists of articles which happen to share a name, that's wasted time, because readers could determine the same information from a search. One could argue that an editor's time is theirs to waste, but it becomes a problem if everyone else is expected to follow along - and the wider the inclusion criteria, the larger these page become, and the faster they fall out of date.


 * Fox (disambiguation) is a good example of where disambiguation may be useful; there are many species and other things which are reasonably called just "fox", and a simple listing may be useful. The personal entries there are dubious, though. For example, Foxberance is not to my knowledge ever called just "Fox" (except in cases where he would be the only fox), but "FoxB". Likewise, it seems unlikely that anyone will link to or visit Wolf expecting to get to Wolf Kidd. Again, that is what search is for. Disambiguation pages are intended to solve a single issue; that a title is the right title (i.e. the word that an editor would commonly use, and link to) for two different things. Things that "are an X/start with X" have nothing to do with it. It's only about title clashes.


 * Sections should be used if there seem to be enough items in distinct groups to their use. Rather than having a hard rule, use common sense: are there several instances of a particular kind of article, and several that are of another? If so, sections to delineate these would probably be useful. In the cases where they are used, likely makes sense. I could see there being exceptions, but if a disambiguation page is getting so large that a TOC is useful, it's a sign that there may be too many items in it.


 * tl;dr: We should be focussed on writing great articles, less on determining precise rules about how to disambiguate between them. When the issue arises, focus on "does this item make sense for this page?" - not "we need to make a general rule!" Debate will never be entirely eliminated, because a wiki is a living document, its editors change, and there are always cases in which it makes sense to make an exception to precedent. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:43, 1 March 2014 (EST)