Talk:Aborigine (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] merging pages

Why do we have a aborigine page and a aborigine (disambiguation) page? the disambiguation page doesn't disambiguate anything that isn't already on the aborigine, it is merely less complete and informative. The aborigine page should say "disambiguation" and the current disambiguation page should be removed. If ther are no objections, ill do it soon. --Ballchef 00:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Ballchef, the aborigine (disambiguation) pg is a recent creation, and formerly aborigine did have a dab notice on it. See the recent Edit history for some indication; it boils down to a slight disagreement on whether "standard" stylistics ought to be employed here or not. My own personal preference is for this pg (Aborigine) to be flagged as a dab pg, whilst retaining the information it has. A proper article should not be built on this page, since there are already separate articles on the various things which the term "Aborigine" could refer to; nor should this be a simple redirect since there is more than one article it could point to. Aborigine (disambiguation) is only linked to this pg, & I agree it is unlikely to be useful to dab anything as it stands. However, a pg "Aborigine" (without the (disambiguation) bit added) is needed, since many editors will continue to (and have already) created links to it, when they actually meant to link to one of the alternatives listed on the pg. Therefore, unless you go back and change all these Aborigine, aborigines, aboriginal, etc links to aborigine (disambiguation), and continue to monitor future link creation to these pages, I don't think it will help any to use the "aborigine (disambiguation)" page title format.

To put it another way, IMO the "article-name (disambiguation)" pg title standard/format only works when there is a primary article with the title "article-name", and the "article-name(disambiguation)" link is placed at its top and refers to the other, subsidiary meanings. In this particular case, Aborigine will not be expanded as an article on its own merits, and so ought to contain instead the dab references, as most editors cannot be expected to use [[aborigine (disambiguation)] as the explicit link.--cjllw | TALK 01:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks CJ. OK, i dont want to expand aborigine, but how about I copy the content of that article and replace the content at aborigine (disambiguation), then redirect aborigine to the dab page. if aborigine redirects, then any pages that link to aborigine will redirect wont they? At the least I will vote to merge the pages for now.

On abother note, I looked at what links here for aborigine, and there are a LOT of pages. I would guess that most of these pages are supposed to link to any one of the three types of aborigines pages, not the aborigine page which is virtually a disambiguation page. that will take a long time. sigh. --Ballchef 04:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I support the merger now that I found this ... Perhaps an additional solution ... merge the articles (with the dab page redirected to the main page) and instead of adding {{disambig}} add Category:Signpost articles. I hadn't considered this category before, but it does fit in this case, I think. This category is a sub-category of Category:Disambiguation. Thoughts? Courtland 01:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ballchef, if you want to have disambig in the title then redirecting Aborigine to Aborigine (disambiguation) whilst transferring the information currently on the Aborigine pg would work, even if some people frown upon redirection to a dab page. However, you would also need to similarly redirect the pages for Aborigines, Aboriginal, Aboriginals, Aboriginal people, and any other variations on this theme, so that they all end up in the same place. Certainly, it would be good to also go through the various articles which link to aborigine, aboriginal, etc. and correct those to the more specific link as per their context (ie indigenous peoples,Indigenous Australians, Taiwanese aborigines, Aboriginal peoples in Canada, Aboriginal peoples in Manitoba, &c.). However, editors will likely continue to use aborigine etc links, so the dab pg will need to be maintained.

And Courtland, I also had not heard of Category:Signpost articles; I suppose it is an option, tho' with only 4 articles in it at present it doesn't seem to be widely used.--cjllw | TALK 02:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I went bold and merged the 2 disambig pages per this discussion, Aborigine (disambig) is now a redirect to Aborigine, all content from both pages is in the 'new' page, and organised by section for easy reference. Pedant 17:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful, this is good now, thanks pedant. --Ballchef 04:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that Sabine links to Aborigine in the context as the ancestor of the Italic (Latium) tribes. It has a book as reference, and the citation from the book in the footnode also names "Aborigine" by name. There is no information whatsoever on these pages about this. Could it be that there used to be and that that was the reason for the disambiguation page? 88.159.74.100 (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost articles

I've worked on a couple of conversions of chimeric articles into "signpost articles", the most recent work commencing on Abandonment. There is not any standard format for such articles at present and if anyone would like to contribute thoughts to how best to organize this article type, I'm sure they would be welcome at Category_talk:Signpost_articles. Regards, Courtland 15:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)