Talk:九龍 (disambiguation)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] More at Jiulong
Why are there about 10 other things at Jiulong that aren't here? Badagnani (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know, but they might not all be "nine dragons"--could be in other tones than "jiǔlóng". HkCaGu (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- In this case, we do this for ease of maintenance. If we had to include each single item in Jiulong here, the long list would be entirely duplicated here, and it would be harder to synchronize 九龍 (disambiguation) with Jiulong (disambiguation) all the time. It's OK to just redirect to the other dab page instead.--Endroit (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we should endeavor to be as complete as possible. Synchronization probably isn't a big concern, as there aren't likely to be new towns established in China with this name in the near future. Badagnani (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I believe the spirit of WP:DAB is to strive for simplicity wherever possible, which means duplication is not encouraged. I asked JHunterJ to comment here as well, because he is more familiar with how things are done at WP:WPDAB.--Endroit (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Simplicity is a useful path, but not a goal in particular. IMO, things that are known as 九龍 or its simplified form, and are noted as such in their articles, should be listed here, in order to make things simple for the reader. If someone did enter 九龍 in the search box and hit "Go", but didn't want the Hong Kong area, they'd click through to this dab page, fail to find the Chinese county (for instance), and have to click through to another dab page. (For some reason, this strikes me as contrary to an opinion I've voiced in the past -- if it is, sorry for my confusion.) Other things that are Jiulong but not 九龍 should be listed only there, not here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. Having to click 3 more times to reach the desired "九龍" article is indeed too much.
- I found two more instances of 九龍/九龙 in Jiulong with existing articles: Jiulong County and Jiulong River. And so I went ahead and added them to the 九龍 dab.--Endroit (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Simplicity is a useful path, but not a goal in particular. IMO, things that are known as 九龍 or its simplified form, and are noted as such in their articles, should be listed here, in order to make things simple for the reader. If someone did enter 九龍 in the search box and hit "Go", but didn't want the Hong Kong area, they'd click through to this dab page, fail to find the Chinese county (for instance), and have to click through to another dab page. (For some reason, this strikes me as contrary to an opinion I've voiced in the past -- if it is, sorry for my confusion.) Other things that are Jiulong but not 九龍 should be listed only there, not here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nine Dragons Paper
I was OK with "Nine Dragons Paper" removed from the disambiguation page, but with this many links added now, I think Nine Dragons Paper should be in. Anyone hearing this company's Chinese name (and not reading) for the first time will naturally think it's the regular number nine (九) and not the special number nine (玖), thus creating ambiguity. HkCaGu (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm strongly against including any 久 variations here just because they can be pronounced "jiǔ" like 九. This kind of thing can quickly get out of hand.
- Besides, people searching phonetically can search for Jiulong and easily find "玖龍"/"玖龙" there instead.
- Another point to consider is that this dab is targeted mainly to English speakers, who are not-so-knowledgeable of the Chinese language. You should be careful not to confuse them. For example, people may misunderstand that "玖龍" can also be used for Kowloon and other instances of "九龍".
- If "玖龍"/"玖龙" must be listed here, please do so in a distinctly separate section near the bottom, and please clearly explain that the character used 玖 is not the same as 九.--Endroit (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Redlinks
Getting rid of redlinks isn't a good idea in this case. Badagnani (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)