Talk:Akita

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Disambiguation This page is part of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

disambiguation pages don't belong in categories because they're not articles, they are guides to navigation - they also don't need any information on them except what's necessary to help the reader find the correct article - all other information belongs in the articles being pointed to (I made MoS:DP revisions and was reverted). Tedernst | talk 22:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Information about generic use of the word is important, and it doesn't belong in each article's page. Also it is appropriate to show relationships on disambig pages. That Akita-shi is the capital city of Akita-ken is important. That the Akita shinkansen runs to Akita-shi is important. The meaning of the name Akita is important (and does not belong on linked pages IMO). That the name Akita is a surname and not a given name is important (because of the ambiguity of Japanese name order). The MoS is a guide, but I think these uses show good cases for either a modification to the guideline or use despite the guideline. If the rules were followed strictly, there would be almost nothing in Category:Surnames. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this generic information needs to be in a page Akita (surname). That would satisfy both our concerns, wouldn't it? Tedernst | talk 23:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. An Akita (surname) page would have two lines. The first would be the meaning of the name and the second would say "for a list of people with the surname, see Akita". I don't see any benefit to putting this on a seperate page. The relationships between the entries are important also. Making the surname page does not address that. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, how do the relationships between the entries help the reader find the intended article? This is the only purpose of a disambiguation page. We have to keep that in mind. The meaning of the name also fails this test, I believe, and falls under the dicdef, which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Is there a page for meanings of Japanese suranmes? Perhaps that's the place for this information. Tedernst | talk 17:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no such page. The relationships are part of the short descriptions and show that the articles are related, and so several of the articles potentially have the information desired, or related information. I think the meaning of the term is best kept on this page, I can't think of another place it would be appropriate. It is a short single line describing the term, what is the harm in keeping it? There are many similar pages, see Smith for example. Would you advocate that the introductory sentences and paragraphs be removed? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out Smith. I've marked it for cleanup. It's awful. Tedernst | talk 22:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilink

Hmm... I disagree with Tedernst's removal of the wikilink to Japanese language. The word "Akita" itself is a Japanese word, so linking it to the Japanese language should be beneficial, IMO. As for the see also section, I've no opinions on it, both ways seem fine with me. Regards, Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 19:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help the reader find the intended article. Japanese language cannot possibly be the intended article, can it? Tedernst | talk 19:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, but I usually see the first sentence as an explanation of the article's name, and the intro's fair game actually, the link might be useful. At least that's just my two cents. :) --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be more agreeable to add it to the See also section? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Can't you just create a Akita (surname) article stub? Thanks/wangi 21:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Why? It would be two lines, as outlined in the above discussion. Japanese surnames usually come from place names, so I don't see any point in spliting things up. They are inherently linked, and a compromise has been reached. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Well a lot of stubs are small - that's why they're stubs. As it stands this article is multitasking as a disambig page and a stub for the surname - it would clearer if it were split. I'm not sure a compromise as been reached, after all we're having this discussion ;) How common a name is it anyway? Three famous people, two of which are long dead - is it common today in Japan? Thanks/wangi 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is fairly common, but it is not in the top 20 Japanese names. See for example this google search [1] which excludes the place locations and the dog breed. 3 million+ results. As for notable individuals, I found the following additional people in the Japanese wikipedia: ja:秋田豊, ja:秋田喜代美, ja:秋田まどか, ja:秋田道夫, and ja:秋田禎信. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If there continues to be a temptation to add more information, just make an article at Akita (name), leave this as a bare-bones disambiguation page. —Michael Z. 2006-01-4 02:44 Z

We're talking about two lines of text and a category. What is the problem with leaving it on this page? There is no need to enforce such ideological purity upon disambiguation pages. The small amount of text and the category do not in any way diminish the primary purpose of the disambiguation page. older≠wiser 15:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] category

I edit a lot of pages. I don't always remember agreements particular to a certain page. I did previously agree not to removed the japanese surname category (see above) and yet today, I did remove it. Sorry about that. Maybe the problem is this page is different from almost every other dab page. I get used to seeing them in a certain format with certain elements, and when they don't, I act. Please note that I didn't edit the page specifically to remove the category. I was working on something else and happened to see the cat as well. Perhaps it really doesn't belong? Tedernst | talk 21:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ted, no problem. I appreciate you posting here for clarification. However, I disagree that categories don't belong on DAB pages. I don't see anyplace in WP:MOSDAB or WP:DAB where it says anything positive or negative about having categories on DAB pages. In the absense of policy one way or the other, I don't see a reason to remove categories. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I asked about it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#categories. Maybe you'd like to join that conversation? The real question is, "Why are they needed?" A disambiguation page isn't an article, it links to articles. The article targets from the dab page should be in categories, of course, meaning categories aren't necessary on the dab page. I'll try to remember not to delete it again, but if I mess up, you'll know why! Tedernst | talk 22:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)