Talk:Killer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

[edit] Disambiquation

I want to make a link to the Finnish band Killer from the disambiquation page. How do I do that when there is already a band named Killer in the list of links? bbx 03:45, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

You'll have to decide on an appropriate name for the article (e.g. [[Killer (Finnish band)]]). You don't want to link directly from a disambiguation page to an external page. -- Jmabel 03:48, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

No of course not, i meen a link to a wiki article of course. I checked the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page but didn't find anything about this problem. But i guess thats a good solution. bbx 03:51, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

A disambiguation page is neither a dictionary entry nor is it intended to be an exhaustive index of every use of the particular word. A dab page is an aid to help users navigate to existing Wikipedia articles. The slang entries do not belong here, unless there is an article to link to that mentions them. Similarly, the other entries I deleted are not mentioned on the linked pages and so don't belong here. I suppose it's interesting that there's a British psychobilly band named "Killer", but they don't have an article, and they are not linked anywhere else, so they can't be on the dab page. For the established guidelines for disambiguation pages, please consult WP:DAB and MOS:DAB. --ShelfSkewed Talk 13:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with those documents. They are not the be-all and end-all of thinking on the matter. In particular, see WP:REDLINK: "In general, red links should not be removed if they link to something that could plausibly sustain an article." Red links encourage article creation, and should not be removed from disambig pages simply because someone personally thinks that the potential article topic might not be notable (or whatever); that is a WP:POV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:IDONTKNOWIT exercise; if such an article does turn out to be non-notable or otherwise problematic, that is a matter for WP:AFD. That much is clear, so I am restoring the redlinks. To the extent that WP:REDLINK and WP:MOSDAB#Red links conflict, oh well. Their reconciliation probably needs to happen at WT:MOSDAB. The MOSDAB advice is actually deeply flawed, because it assumes that redlinked entries at a dab page will always be the most perfect and intuitive possible redlinked article name, when this is very often not the case (e.g. Killer (Swiss band) is no more likely an actual title than Killer (metal band), Killer (heavy metal band) or something more specific like Killer (speed metal band) or Killer (thrash band)), making the what-links-here test useless in such cases, and it directly countermands REDLINK's principle that red links should stand if an article could reasonably exist at them. I will probably address this at WT:MOSDAB myself.

There is nothing at WP:DAB nor MOS:DAB that to me suggests that pointers to general-topic articles for people who arrive at a dab page looking for something relating to that topic, should automatically be removed. (In particular, WP:DAB#Dictionary definitions does not appear to apply, as notable and unusual slang/jargon usages that people may well be looking for information about are not "dictionary definitions"; the definition at top of page is a dictionary definition – of the sort expressly permitted in the dab page's lead, of course). I feel less strongly on that matter, and the guidelines are open to more interpretation, so I won't oppose you further on that one (I suspect we both have more productive things to do than argue about a minor dab page's details. :-)

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: Please revert more carefully; you clobbered edits unrelated to reverting the restoration of material you disagree with. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

PPS: I have in fact brought the matter up over there: WT:MOSDAB#Proposed rewrite of "Red links" section. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I don't want to spend time quibbling over this, and I can live with what's there now, although I don't think the "dark psytrance" entry belongs since the other term is "killer psytrance", not "killer". And, although I didn't the first time around, I'd probably remove "killer sudoku" for the same reason. But I'll leave them alone. I am going to restore the TOCright--pretty standard for long dab pages--and the second introductory line (Killer may refer to:), as the existing introductory line doesn't naturally lead into the non-murderous entries. Also, I may be adding more entries, as I 'm still working my way through what was a long "What links here" list. --ShelfSkewed Talk 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur on the killer x (sudoku, psy) entries. Hadn't really thought of it. Delete them? Also, I give myself a mea culpa self-smack for rv'ing your ToC adjustments and such after kvetching at you for rv'ing stuff of mine that wasn't content-based. D'oh. Oh, and more entries probably a good thing. I'm surprised this dab page is as short as it is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)