Talk:Stirrup (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Stirrup as Surname

I've done nothing about the dict-def-ophilic abuse of the main section of this Dab, but what brought me to this page is Jock Stirrup. Covering people with his surname solely by a section-less lk to List of people by name: Sti, and misrepresenting it via quasi-piping as List of people by name: Stirrup are outrageous. Because

  1. There's only one damn name there.
  2. There's no reasonable expectation of more two damn names being there. (There is only one article on anyone named Stirrup, and only one rd-lk for an elementary school named after another, and only two n-n mentions of others; see the comments embedded in [[Stirrup (disambiguation)#See also].])
  3. The lk that was used would take the user not to where his name is visible, but to the top of the page, two screen-sized sections above his name.
  4. Even the lk List of people by name: Sti#Stir - Stit would do the same when enuf Stir..., Stis..., or Stit... names turn up to force subdivision of that section (and abolition of that heading).
  5. Even tho i I just pre-emptively singled out that section for accelerated expansion with names from Category:Living people, making resubdivision desirable and thereby making its new section Stir. which If further subdivided, it will survive and have subsections (relatively easily reachable from its heading). But even with that improvement in the situation, Stia... thru Stiq... names may eventually force subdivision of the page, landing Stirrup on, say, List of people by name: Stir - Stiz or List of people by name: Stir, so the lk will go to the wrong page.

In a line, such use of LoPbN lks is a bad thing, almost as bad as including a search-lk under "External links".
My bottom line is that i made the LoPbN lk less bad by better targeting it, and by making it (currently) redundant to the direct lk to the bio, but i'm not going to resist the LoPbN lk's removal or say more in its defense than "some people like these, and this one happens to now be among the least likely to go bad". And the Jock Stirrup lk

  1. is more useful than the LoPbN one for most users,
  2. ameliorates the harm of the LoPbN lk,
  3. is needed for reasonable access, and
  4. is harmless here even if there is some kind of meaningful problem on other Dab pages bcz of too many surname lks.
    --Jerzy•t 19:41, 25 & 01:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)