Talk:Princess Victoria/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
rename as List page? |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:Inclined to agree with PG, this doesn't look massively oversized to me by any means, "hierarchical disambiguation" would be more of a navigational nuisance than benefit. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC) |
:Inclined to agree with PG, this doesn't look massively oversized to me by any means, "hierarchical disambiguation" would be more of a navigational nuisance than benefit. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC) |
||
At this page, there is also a real big bunch of others than British princesses (and it may grow even bigger). IMO we need a disambig page for those approx four women who were Victorias of the United Kingdom, i.e British princesses named Victoria. Several of our articles (up to four) are named or may be named [[Victoria of the United Kingdom]] due to our NC. In order to avoid a disambig note (listing so many) in the beginning of articles, a separate page is needed. But that page should not be an overflow, and we know that all the world's princesses Victorias will be an overflow which defeats the purpose of having a navigational aid for those who seek British Victorias. I oppose merger between [[Princess Victoria]] |
At this page, there is also a real big bunch of others than British princesses (and it may grow even bigger). IMO we need a disambig page for those approx four women who were Victorias of the United Kingdom, i.e British princesses named Victoria. Several of our articles (up to four) are named or may be named [[Victoria of the United Kingdom]] due to our NC. In order to avoid a disambig note (listing so many) in the beginning of articles, a separate page is needed. But that page should not be an overflow, and we know that all the world's princesses Victorias will be an overflow which defeats the purpose of having a navigational aid for those who seek British Victorias. I oppose merger between this page (currently at [[Princess Victoria]], the general list) and British Victoria page. [[User:Arrigo|Arrigo]] 18:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC) |
||
== rename as [[List]] page? == |
== rename as [[List]] page? == |
||
Revision as of 21:55, 19 September 2005
Used to redirect to the talk page of one of the English "Princess Victoria"s
requested merger
Since in this page there are other than British Victorias, a separate disambig page is needed for British princesses names Victoria. At the moment, it is located at Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom. Arrigo 01:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
No, not necessarily. The number of Princesses Victoria is not so large as to make a single disambiguation list unmanageable. You also have the problem of Princesses whose nationality changed during their lifetime. PatGallacher 01:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Inclined to agree with PG, this doesn't look massively oversized to me by any means, "hierarchical disambiguation" would be more of a navigational nuisance than benefit. Alai 03:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
At this page, there is also a real big bunch of others than British princesses (and it may grow even bigger). IMO we need a disambig page for those approx four women who were Victorias of the United Kingdom, i.e British princesses named Victoria. Several of our articles (up to four) are named or may be named Victoria of the United Kingdom due to our NC. In order to avoid a disambig note (listing so many) in the beginning of articles, a separate page is needed. But that page should not be an overflow, and we know that all the world's princesses Victorias will be an overflow which defeats the purpose of having a navigational aid for those who seek British Victorias. I oppose merger between this page (currently at Princess Victoria, the general list) and British Victoria page. Arrigo 18:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
rename as List page?
This page begins to be quite long. AND, already some of the individuals (while legitimately known as Princess Victoria and as such, readers deserve to have also them listed somewhere) are IMO not notable enough to have an own article. (Witness: there are already some very stub articles created because of link having appeared on this page.) I wouldn't want to encourage creation of bunches of biographical stubs of obscure royals. IMO they just deserve a mention in a list so that readers may distinguish between similarly-named royals who customarily happen to share same first names. Would a LIST be a better choice than disambig page? Arrigo 21:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)