Talk:Quote (United Kingdom)

Why move Quote?

Especially to a title that is spelled wrong? Equivamp 16:03, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

Because its a common mainstream name. Up to know, names that can be common, or misleading, an add-on word was added to prevent confusion ("Quote" ["a quote", this quote", Wikifur formatting "quote"] to Quote (administrator)). This is been done by me and other colleagues in the past,...:

• Vago to Vago (fan). This word can be a problem on the Spanish Wikifur, as Vago means "one that is lazy".
• Dr. Pepper to Dr. Pepper (writer). The person is a writer, not a mainstream drink.
• Cody to Cody (webcomic),... too many Cody's. Too many Cody's on Wikifur.
• Avatar to Avatar (computing), one a movie, the other computer related.
• Istanbul to Istanbul (person).
• Delete to Delete (person) (same as quote, type).
• Diablo to Diablo (artist).
• Decaf to Decaf (artist))

Etc, etc,... So the proper question is, why we are not following the formatting practices of Wikifur regarding this name? - Spirou 22:10, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

Possibly because, if there's no other page with that title, and it's unlikely someone would be searching for the definition of "Quote" (or soda pop) on a furry-centric wiki. Equivamp 22:17, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

Just as an example reply, that would also apply to number 6th one from the top, "Delete". - Spirou 22:21, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

The search box is for articles, not commands. If a user wants to know how to do something, they should look at the help (help is a soft redirect). --GreenReaper^(talk) 23:44, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

I think this is a misunderstanding of how disambiguation is meant to work. It doesn't make sense to just move and erase the original, as that just turns existing links red and makes it harder to find and link to the topic.

Such moves are only necessary to distinguish between two or more topics, and only when they are equally likely to be the topic desired when linking to "X". In this case, you would move the original to make room for a disambiguation page pointing to the renamed article and the titles for the other topics (which need not all exist yet, but it should possible to give a one-line description for the page - e.g. "* '''[[X (Dutch artist)|X]]''' is a wolf artist who lives in the Netherlands").

If there is only one topic within the context of the fandom to which a particular name belongs, the article for that topic should reside at that name. This shouldn't cause confusion; topics here are interpreted in a furry context, and we link directly to Wikipedia when referring to the RL Istanbul and Dr. Pepper.

A topic should also reside at an unadorned name if it is clearly the main topic (i .e. if people mean X (A) 90% of the time and X (B) 10% of the time, X (A) should be at X, with X (B) linked in a hatnote. If there is true potential for confusion (as with Avatar), make a dedicated disambiguation page. If the topic might be of interest to furs but is not specific to furry, it may make sense to link to Wikipedia from such hatnotes and disambiguation pages.

It's OK to move a name to a more specific name (as with Vago -> Vago Kathyr Drachenwulf), but in general the redirect should be left unless the shortened name by itself could be another topic in the context of furry, in which case it should be made into a disambiguation page. That a name is a word (in any language) is in my view insufficient to justify such a disambiguation by itself - what matters is whether it would make sense to have an article on that here. Wiki-relevant terms would be self-references and so should go in hatnotes pointing to the Help: or WikiFur: namespace articles covering such topics if they are mentioned at all. --GreenReaper^(talk) 23:44, 26 May 2011 (EDT)