On 17/04/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 16 Apr 2006, at 18:11, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 16/04/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/16/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
So I'm not convinced that the rule "pragmatic disambiguation over presumed importance" is applied all that consistency.
Sounds like some head-beating is necessary, but I already have way too much of this to do.
You're not talking about mine, are you? :) I'm happy to beat people with a fixed rule, but I'd like more confirmation that this rule actually exists and is accepted by the community. There is the guideline on disambig pages, but it's fairly vague. A hard-line "a city does *not* get priority over a cheese if most people would expect the cheese" would be helpful.
I would find it very odd that something named after something else should ever get priority.
However obscure the original is, like Camembert, or Jethro Tull, I think it should be at the article place. (Actually Jethro Tull is now a dab page).
This sounds good, and you can make a decent argument even for somewhere like "Boston", but, say, "Baltimore"? The original appears to have been an Irish hamlet somewhere in Longford that doesn't even exist any more...
([[Memphis]] is a pretty good example of how to handle an obscure source and go into a disambig, though)
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk