On 13/04/06, David Boothroyd <david(a)election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Other editors subsequently sorted them by field, and then Uncle G
> removed the 'disambiguation' notice on the grounds that the names were
> not really ambiguous, which is (as usual for Uncle G) quite correct.
Right, I think there's something to be said for lists which group
people by last name, or places with *similar* names. However, it's not
a disambiguation page. In the case of the Victoria dab page, entries
like "Victoria Falls" seem misplaced to me - no one looking for
Victoria Falls would go to the "Victoria" entry.
In fact, if you're talking true ambiguity - names that can't be
disambiguated using a fuller title or some natural construct - there
are very few Victorias. The British monarch could be searched for
under Queen Victoria. The Canadian city could be found under
"Victoria, British Columbia" (if indeed that's the standard
nomenclature). The various mountains, lakes and so on could be found
under "Lake Victoria" etc. Which leaves the following genuinely
ambiguous entities:
Victoria (Australian state)
Victoria (Cervecería Centro Americana), a pale Guatemalan lager.
Victoria (Grupo Modelo), a dark Mexican lager.
Victoria (novel), an 1898 novel
Victoria (game), a PC RTS game released by Paradox Entertainment
Victoria (ship), the first ship to circumnavigate the globe
Victoria (waterlily), the waterlily genus
Victoria (name)
A much shorter list, isn't it!
(arguably a few of the cities named Victoria should be on the list, if
"Victoria, Newport" is not a natural construction in the UK etc.
Steve