On 13/04/06, David Boothroyd david@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 (CervecerÃa 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
On 4/14/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
(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.
I disagree with removing everything that has a natural qualifier, since people may not know or think of the correct one. E.g. if someone is searching for a city named Victoria, they may not know what state, province, county or whatever it's in.
It makes sense to list the more likely cases first, though.
-Matt
On 14/04/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree with removing everything that has a natural qualifier, since people may not know or think of the correct one. E.g. if someone is searching for a city named Victoria, they may not know what state, province, county or whatever it's in.
It makes sense to list the more likely cases first, though.
Several possibilities: 1 List only true ambiguities, point all others to a subpage ("things called Victoria") 2 List true ambiguities first, followed by "other things with the word Victoria in them" 3 List true ambiguities and things called Victoria all mixed in together (current strategy)
I would tend to agree that strategy 2 is better.
Also note that I'm obviously talking about a general strategy for big disambig pages, not just the Victoria page :)
Steve