Talk:Kylie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Origins

I don't accept that this is simply a disambiguation page and I feel that Wangi's last edit has lost something important; namely the origins of the word kylie. While it might be supposed from Wangi's wording that the word originated as a Noongar word for boomerang, it is by no means clear.

Also, contrary to the present wording, Noongar is not interchangeable with "Australian Aboriginal language"; Noongar is merely one of the several hundred Aboriginal languages.

I intend to revert but I will give others a few days to respond. Grant65 | Talk 14:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well this page is clearly a disambiguation page. I think the best course of action would be to either expand on the work in the boomerang article, or perhaps start a Kylie (boomerang) stub? In anycase I have made a further edit to clarify Aboriginal / Noogar. Thanks/wangi 14:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. Is there a rule which says that dab pages are not to serve any purpose at all other than dismabiguation? If so it seems anal and there are plenty of dab pages which break any such rule.

There is no point in a Kylie (boomerang) page because few people, other than speakers of Noongar, know a boomerang as a "kylie". Such an article would be a dead end, linked only from this one. Grant65 | Talk 10:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Dabpages are all about getting the user to where they intended to be in the first place - they're not articles. To be honest I cannot see the problem in simply having a link to the boomerang article where it says the little there is to say, and that's it. Putting extended information on this dabpage sorta goes against the guidelines - both the dab guidelines and the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy.

To be honest all the other Kylie's linked on this page probably shouldn't be there - how many of them are routinely referred to simply as "Kylie". Dabpages aren't a list of every article containing a term in it's name.

I imagine not many people have this page on their watchlist - so if you're wanting to field this question to a wider audience try the talk pages on either the WP:DAB or WP:MOSDAB guideline talk pages. Thanks/wangi 11:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We need two articles: Kylie (name) in Category:Given names with the origin; Kylie dab will point to (1) the name article; (2) Kylie Minogue, (3) her 2 eponymous albums. jnestorius^(talk) 12:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A good solution, what do you think of the swath of other Kylie's listed on this dabpage? Thanks/wangi 12:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I originally added them. I now accept that was a mistake for a dab page. They can be on the name page for the moment. jnestorius^(talk) 14:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Another solution would be a see also section with a link to Special:Prefixindex/Kylie? /wangi 14:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Add to the name page. Though not many articles in Category:Given names use that at the moment. Most of them are largely random lists. It's a general problem needing a general solution. jnestorius^(talk) 14:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of Kylie and Kylie (name) now? Thanks/wangi 10:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it achieves nothing at all to separate the material; it just means people need an extra click of the mouse to find what they are looking for. This is a classic case of policy getting the way of common sense. Grant65 | Talk 03:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The only people who need an extra click are the tiny few who typed "Kylie" and expected to find, say, "Kylie Mole". Most people will expect Minogue, and will find her more easily with fewer competing entries, and possibly be surprised to find there are other Kylies. Which is all good. jnestorius^(talk) 00:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)