Talk:Haguna
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of the Anthroponymy WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Anthroponymy, the study of people's names. This project is dedicated to creating uniform helpful encyclopedia quality articles on the surnames, family names and nicknames of people. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. |
[edit] The removed references
Berig is complaining that I removed references. What I had removed was this:
- Sources and external links
Twice the same url, under different names, to a search interface in Swedish. I understand Swedish, but could not find anything there on Haguna. /Pieter Kuiper 07:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- You'll find the works on the right of the page, for consultation.--Berig 07:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Thank you. I made the first link more explicit by referring to the pdf. The second one is not helpful, so I removed it. I find the claim that these names occurred before 700 AD a bit hard to swallow. /Pieter Kuiper 08:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] This is not a disambiguation page (WP:D)
I argue two things:
- This is a page about a name. It discusses etymology. It lists a few instances of this name. It does not conform to the guidelines for a disambiguation page on WP:D.
- I think it is rather obvious that one does not want readers to bypass this article when sent there from an internal link, an encouragement generated by the wp:d-tag.
User:Berig just 'does not agree', and reverts. Ah well, skitsamma, as we say in Sweden. /Pieter Kuiper 10:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- This article was created as a disambiguation page since several of the characters appear in different sources with different forms of the name. If you feel that the article cannot and must not be a disambiguation page, you need to create a disambiguation page that can replace it.--Berig 10:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- It does not matter how it was created. What matters is the situation now, and the article does not come close to the format described in WP:D. You cannot insist on two contradictory things: insisting on redirecting Hogni and Högni here instead of to Högne, and encouraging readers to resolve internal redirects. But as I said, I could not care less about Hogne. /Pieter Kuiper 11:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The same character appears with all those name forms in different sources. What you suggest would create several disambiguation pages, when there is only need for *one*, the present one. Moreover, please explain exactly how this page does not comply with the format of the guideline of WP:D.--Berig 11:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). This one here is an article about the Haguna name cluster, with etymology, pretty pictures etc, as I already tried to explain. A disambiguation page is a non-article page. /Pieter Kuiper 12:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Since it is apparently of vital importance to you that this article not have the disambiguation notice, while I think it is useful that it serves as a disambiguation page, it might be best if other users have their say.--Berig 14:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Other users had their say in WP:D. You are not listening. /Pieter Kuiper 14:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am talking of *this* article, not pages in general.--Berig 14:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- WP:D expresses a reasoned consensus, it is not just a random discussion page. /Pieter Kuiper 14:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am talking of *this* article, not pages in general.--Berig 14:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Other users had their say in WP:D. You are not listening. /Pieter Kuiper 14:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Since it is apparently of vital importance to you that this article not have the disambiguation notice, while I think it is useful that it serves as a disambiguation page, it might be best if other users have their say.--Berig 14:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). This one here is an article about the Haguna name cluster, with etymology, pretty pictures etc, as I already tried to explain. A disambiguation page is a non-article page. /Pieter Kuiper 12:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The same character appears with all those name forms in different sources. What you suggest would create several disambiguation pages, when there is only need for *one*, the present one. Moreover, please explain exactly how this page does not comply with the format of the guideline of WP:D.--Berig 11:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- It does not matter how it was created. What matters is the situation now, and the article does not come close to the format described in WP:D. You cannot insist on two contradictory things: insisting on redirecting Hogni and Högni here instead of to Högne, and encouraging readers to resolve internal redirects. But as I said, I could not care less about Hogne. /Pieter Kuiper 11:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
As I said, let's let other users have their say, because Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) says:
- For every style suggestion above, there's some page which has a good reason to do something else. These guidelines are intended for consistency, but usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason.
I think that we have good reasons to leave the disambiguation notice here, and please, allow others to have their say too.--Berig 14:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Fróði is a similar borderline case. Haukur 17:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Oleg, Helge, Igor (given name) and Sviatoslav are all articles containing history and etymology of the respective names but which are also labled as disambig because they contain extensive lists. Seems to me like the disambig tag here is appropriate. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no question in my mind that this page is not a disambig page, because it contains far too much content. However, it does disambiguate, and I don't want to have to throw away the content for the sake of following policy. My suggestion is to split the article. Let Haguna discuss the name and its etymology, and create Haguna (disambiguation) to perform the disambig function. ~ Booya Bazooka 22:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, either it is a disambiguation page which is by definition purely an aid to navigation and should not contain images and references or it is a article about the name. At present, it looks more like an article about a name than a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 23:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. Now I will try to improve the encyclopedic content of this article. /Pieter Kuiper 23:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Could the article be renamed as "Haguna (name)" to disambiguate it. It discusses about the name and then lists people that may be referred to by the name. Just "Haguna" as the title gives the impression that the article is about a certain specific individual. --Drieakko 12:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe. But the article is not only (and not even mainly) about the name. It also is about which of these characters may or may not be identical. /Pieter Kuiper 15:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
many pages on given names are such borderline cases. A page on $NAME usually starts as a simple list of people so called. As such, it is a disambiguation page. But we have many valid articles on given names themselves, in Category:given names. As further information is added, the page becomes a valid article. At what point do we remove the {{disambig}} notice? Use common sense. The notice says "If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article". Consequently, as soon as this page has information that may be intentionally linked to from other articles, the notice should go. Since this page has a "Given Name" infobox, etymological information, and even cites a source, I would opine that it does indeed qualify as a short article in its own right. dab (𒁳) 06:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
