Talk:Thunderbird (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I genuinely and thoroughly dislike using '(disambiguation)' for disambig pages. I much prefer the 'raw' article name be used as a disambig. Everyone has a different perspective on which usage of the word is more prominent. For some, the more genereally considered lesser usages will be by far the more prevalent usage. When writing articles, the norm would be to type [[article]]. If this points to a disambig page, no matter what usage was intended, it will be correct. If this points to a specific article (even though that article has a pointer to [[article (disambiguation)]]), the the reader may either get confused (because they didn't see the pointer or the pointer is poorly placed), or will have to take an additional step to get to the link they really want.

Ok, I probably should put that on some talk:article discussing how to disambiguate. But It's here now and I'll copy it when I find the right place and the right time. I intend to move Thunderbird to Thunderbird (mythology), and then move Thunderbird (disambiguation) to Thunderbird.

What's a reasonable period of time to wait? I'll put a pointer to this discussion on all of the Thunderbird talk: pages.

- UtherSRG 20:02, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The "more prominent" usage should be determined by counting the number of links to each usage. Unless there is a single winner by a large margin, the page should be a disambiguation. ( 20:38, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think you are right since the mythological bird gets only a few links. The TV programme and the car are fairly popular. ( 20:51, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ok. I'll get on it. :) - UtherSRG 20:54, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —Morven 20:14, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea UtherSRG. Probably the only time we should use the (disambiguation) format is when there's one definition that is far-and-away the most common one, which isn't the case here at all. - Hephaestos 20:24, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree that if there's a clearly-most-common usage then we should have a blah (disambiguation) page. Wikipedia:Disambiguation make this point, and calls it "primary topic disambiguation". I'm indifferent as to whether a primary topic exists for the term Thunderbird, though I think it's pretty likely that the "mythical creature common to Native American religion" is the source of the term, and that all others ultimately come from it. (For some, this is sufficient reason to treat it as the primary topic, as has been done at Magneto.) -mhr

I don't think the intention of "primary topic" is original meaning, E.g., Boston, England is not at Boston. ( 23:46, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that people are much less likely to be looking for the mythology meaning than the TV show, car or alcohol named Thunderbird -- it's simply less relevant to everyday modern life. And in this case, none of the meanings is so prominent that it deserves billing above the others. —Morven 02:39, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I also wish you'd waited a smidgen longer before making the change. Watchlists were down all weekend (didn't come up for me until this afternoon), so many people were probably unable to see your comment until today. But that's neither here nor there at this point... -mhr 23:32, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I had my watchlist back and didn't realize others didn't, sorry. Although I still don't like blah (disambiguation), I'm fine with using it when there's a single significant article and two or more lesser articles. Clearly, this isn't the case with Thunderbird. I'll try to be a little more sensitive to timing. I had asked about timing, but the go ahead seemed fairly reasonable. - UtherSRG 00:23, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe this. This bird is the Bird that I see nearly every day! (From a Person named Sebastian Cruz-Cafiero. You can call him at 786-293-9494... on the weekend.)