Talk:Mugwump (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Which came first?

Which came first: Silverberg's Mugwumps or Burroughs'? Can anyone locate a discussion of the strange coincidence that two fiction writers should in the same year (1959) hit on Mugwump as a name for their creations? --User:Quuxplusone, 04:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter

What about Albus Dumbledore? I think one of his titles was "Supreme Mugwump of the Wizengamut" or something similar. --141.35.111.108 19:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriate?

I don't see the need for all these things on this page. A disambiguation page is supposed to direct people to different Wikipedia articles with similar names, not be a list of everything that has appropriated a certain name. Shouldn't this page just link to Mugwump and The Mugwumps, and then maybe mention the term's use in British politics and William Burrough's story as well? --Miskwito 22:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This Disambiguation page is marked for cleanup by the cleanup team. If someone takes one of the anecdotes, expands, and creates an article, then that's one more article. On the disambiguation page, as I understand it, there ought to be a link and a couple of words leading to each article that is already written. The anecdotes do not belong on any page. Articles are what the mainspace is for. This cleanup takes time, and helpers. I may be wrong in what I have said here as I have read only a few of the guidelines for the cleanup. Until I read some more, I am not even attempting to link or sort or whatever needs to be done. Cleanup guidelines are in a box on the Article page.Newbyguesses 15:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

On reading more guidelines on Disambiguation, I am happy for now with the page setup here and at the main article Mugwump. The list reads like a list of unconnected items that just happen to have the same name associated, and it is difficult to establish which ones are more important in a historical sense. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the last entry, which does not lead to an article at all, should be the only one that does so. (Also, the first entry, which refers back to the main article, could be reworded slightly - it jars for some reason. Then, the cleanup tag can come off? (There is much more I want to find out about the cleanup process, but searching guidelines online is new to me, I am used to reading books, or hardcopy, or snail-write or whatever, and a slow,slow,slow connection from this old greybox to the web does not help either.))Newbyguesses 00:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, first off, disambiguation pages should point to existing Wikipedia articles; when most of the entries don't exist as articles, they're essentially just dictionary definitions, which the disambiguation guidelines specifically urge against. So the issue of ordering is kind of moot, I think, since really only Mugwump and The Mugwumps should be linked to. Since "Mugwump" originated in politics, and since the description of The Mugwumps specifically says "they never achieved fame", I would suggest that Mugwump come first. Thoughts? --Miskwito 01:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now read through Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) again,and applied those actions I think bring the page more in conformity. Now, I see that there is more to do for this page to fully meet the quality standards. But it is cleaner, for now, isn't it? For those pesky items, There might be one link to an article that does explicate the term Mugwamp specifically in that article, in which case the link will point out there correctly to an article. But if there is no mention, then it does not meet the guidelines, as I understand it, and should come out. But I can't check each one to see if there is a valid link, although I will look into this if I get the chance. Take links out if they definitely don't link to an article that specifically mentions mugwump/mugwamp, and leave them in if they do link speciffically to a mention of mugwump - that is my understanding of the quality standards, at this timeNewbyguesses 01:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, another thought. If the link points to a substantial article, (or one which can be expanded), then someone can insert the valid reference, properly sourced in the appropriate place in the article. Then the disambig/ page can link to an anchor link/thingy at the sub-section level, I think. This is only valid if the information is of sufficient importance to fit those guideline that apply to all articles, not just disamb/ pages. So, either someone writes it up good, or someone writes it up not so good, and it then seems to me to simply be an excuse for an anecdote. Then again, that's how some articles start out. More guidelines for me to be reading, if my eyeglasses don't melt in the meantime.Newbyguesses 02:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Now I looked at Mugwamp (computer game); which points to a biographical stub for David Ahl. So, there is no referback there, and little prospect unless someone adds to the stub, and that shall only happen if someone feels that information is worth saying (it usually is), and can be written up, and fits well into a well article (as such). Then, say someone writes it up, but there is a dispute process, and the info comes out again, and the disambig/problem is back to SQ 1. It's an ongoing process, I will look at some other Disambig Cleanup Candidates to get some perspective. (And rest my poor fingers)Newbyguesses 02:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)