Talk:Spike (character)

Incomplete page repurposing

This page has been changed from a redirect to an independent list with this edit, but the editor forgot to move the talk page. I just fixed this. — Sebastian 23:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Spike (character) a valid disambiguation page?

@KSFT and JasonAQuest: MOS:DABPAGENAME and WP:DABNAME describe the naming convention for disambiguation pages. The only valid disambiguation page names for the term "spike" are spike or spike (disambiguation). Spike (character) may be a list article of some sort or it may be unnecessary, but it is not a disambiguation page. Any entities known by the mononym "Spike" really should be listed directly on the disambiguation page. We don't (generally) do subordinate disambiguation pages. There was some discussion about this not too long ago (here) about the Victoria dab page and the separate Victoria (geographical disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 23:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: The current title of this article is irrelevant; even if it's named incorrectly, which I don't think it is, that has nothing to do with whether it should be labelled as a dab page. When there is no primary topic, as is the case here, WP:DABNAME says the title should be "the ambiguous term itself", which in this case is "Spike (character)". There are several possible meanings for that title, which is what "ambiguous term" means. The discussion about "Victoria" only included four people. One of them disagreed with the rest, and another incorrectly cited WP:INCDAB, ignoring WP:DDAB, which gives "Montgomery" as an example of a double dab page like this. WP:D has no guidelines about when to use which other than where it says that incomplete dab should be used when the name is "still ambiguous, but not enough so to call for double disambiguation", which contains no information about where the line is. There are a lot of characters and non-character things named "Spike", so I don't see any reason to change this one. Either way, it doesn't make sense for this to be a list; "Spike" refers to several different topics, so you can't have an encyclopedia article about it. You could have a list of characters named "Spike", but that doesn't seem like it would be useful for anything other than finding the page you were looking for, which is exactly the point of dab pages. KSFT^C 23:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but the current title is precisely the issue. At best this is a prime example of WP:incomplete disambiguation and should be merged back into the main disambiguation page or into the given name page. At worst it is some sort of ill-conceived list article. In addition, the current format of the entries do not conform with WP:MOSDAB. older ≠ wiser 00:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: This is neither an WP:INCDAB nor a list. It's a WP:DDAB. Re-read WP:INCDAB if you think it says that all sub-dab pages should be merged. It doesn't say they should all be incomplete dabs; it says that's one way of doing it. Right above it is the other way, WP:DDAB, which is how this article is currently set up. I agree that a list wouldn't make sense, as I already explained. You claimed that the title is the issue, but your complaints after that are unrelated, about whether it's an WP:INCDAB and about WP:MOSDAB, which is a separate issue. If it doesn't follow WP:MOSDAB, then WP:FIXIT. It was clearly set up as a WP:DDAB, and there's no reason to change it. KSFT^C 02:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. From the examples given there it is clear this is an incomplete disambiguation. Show me some other disambiguation pages with a parenthetical phase other than (disambiguation). This is a recently created artifact that seems to have been poorly thought through. older ≠ wiser 02:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: It is very clearly not an incomplete dab. Read WP:INCDAB and WP:DDAB again. An incomplete dab is a dab of a specific term, in this case "Spike (character)", that redirects to the main dab page, which is not the case here. A double dab is a dab of a specific term that's a separate page that contains entries that are not on the main dab page. It doesn't matter whether you agree that this is a double dab, because it objectively is. Spike (character) does not redirect to Spike. KSFT^C 03:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

To respond to your other points, "Montgomery County", which I mentioned before, has "County" in its name, which serves the same purpose as the parenthetical, both here and in WP:INCDAB's example, Aurora (album). That purpose is to specify which group of things referred to by the term this page is about. I'm not sure that's relevant, though. I don't think when this article was created is relevant. KSFT^C 03:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't tell if we're reading different pages. It is quite obviously either an incomplete disambiguation or a set index. None of the subjects is known as "Spike (character)". If there were only one fictional character with the name "Spike", that would be an appropriate title for that character's page. Since there are multiple characters with that name, they require additional disambiguation, because "Spike (character)" is incomplete disambiguation. That is practically the definition of incomplete disambiguation. County is part of the name of those subjects which is why they have a separate page. They are not typically referred to as simply "Montgomery" alone, except elliptically in informal usage where the context is clear. older ≠ wiser 11:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

As you know, sometimes, a more specific title, like "Spike (character)" still could refer to multiple topics. That isn't called incomplete disambiguation. Incomplete disambiguation is one way of setting up pages when that's the case. This page was set up as a double disambiguation, which is the other way of doing that. KSFT^C 17:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No, that is precisely what incomplete disambiguation is. That is the very definition of incomplete disambiguation. Double disambiguation does not apply in this case. None of these are known as "Spike (character)". The parenthetical is an artifice purely for disambiguation within Wikipedia unlike Montgomery County, where those subjects are named exactly that. older ≠ wiser 17:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:DDAB says this: "A double disambiguation is a link to a disambiguation page from another disambiguation page.". Before you changed it, this page was a disambiguation page that was linked to from "Spike", which is another disambiguation page. I'm not sure how you can read that and think that "[d]ouble disambiguation does not apply". KSFT^C 18:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:DDAB is irrelevant here. While there are many characters named "Spike", there are none named "Spike (character)". WP:DDAB describes HOW to create links from one disambiguation page to another disambiguation page where the might be some overlap due to similarity in the titles. I asked earlier and you didn't reply, can you name any otherdisambiguation pages with a parenthetical term other than "disambiguation"? older ≠ wiser 19:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Spike is unwieldy enough as a disambiguation page without adding a long list of characters to it. Before I started working on it, it had a few characters and a couple real people sprinkled here and there under topic areas, but was very incomplete, with a bunch more found on Spike (given name) and more on Spike (comics). To make it complete would have made it even larger and harder to manage... and especially to organize meaningfully. The general practice is to organize disambig pages by topic area, but this would mean putting (for example) musicians, instrument terminology, and song titles in one section; a cartoonist, comics characters (no, wait... one of them is also a TV character, wrong section), and magazine titles in another section... which would be counterintuitive. The merge/split/moves I've done provide a more logical way of breaking down the "Spike"s: a primary disambig page, linked to sub-pages for real people and characters. If there is a rule somewhere that says that all possible topics must be listed on a single disambig page, then perhaps this is a good instances of when to ignore that rule. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

See the discussion linked above about the Victoria geography page. That was a very similar situation and the Victoria page is actually quite a bit longer than spike. The basic rule is that if something is known as simply "spike", it should be listed on the disambiguation page for "spike". None of these subjects are titled "spike (character)". That is an artificial ambiguity. older ≠ wiser 03:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@JasonAQuest: There is no rule that says that, and WP:DDAB has information about an alternative to that. @Bkonrad: As WP:DDAB says, that is not true in the case of double dabs. I've already responded to your point about "Victoria" above. Any of the subject articles could be titled "Spike (character)" if there was no ambiguity. I'm not sure what you mean by calling the ambiguity "artificial", but it doesn't seem to be in any sense of the word I've heard of. There are multiple things it could refer to, and that's what ambiguity is. KSFT^C 04:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Spike (character) is a set index, just like Spike (given name) or Spike (surname). There, problem solved. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kpalion: That raises the question of whether it's the primary topic. KSFT^C 08:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

For Spike? No, it isn't, but I don't see why this question should arise. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me elaborate: if it's a set index, then it's not a disambiguation page, so rules about disambiguation page titles don't apply here, therefore the question of primary topic is irrelevant for this article. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"Spike (character)" wouldn't be a dab page, but "Spike" or "Spike (disambiguation)" still would be, and it looks like "Spike (character)" might the the primary topic of that dab page. KSFT^C 17:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The fictional characters known only as "Spike" should not have been on the separate given name page in the first place, but the correct thing to do would have been to move them (back?) to the dab page. I don't believe Spike is large enough to warrant splitting them off. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with the current solution of having the disambig. page point to several set indeces, including a set index of fictional characters. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

However you classify the pages, I find the current arrangement much more reader-friendly than shuffling the characters into Spike would be. The current sections for TV, magazines, and games would seem to require that each character be assigned a medium (even though some appear in more than one) and lumped in with unlike (non-character) topics: chaotic and ugly. As for Victoria, I see that as a cautionary example of just how bad things can get when you put every possible instance of a name on a single page: even the table of contents is long enough to require scrolling, which is a sign of poor usability. I'm a little OCD, but I try to steer that into aiding the reader, not into standards for their own sake. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jason. Disambig pages and set indeces are there to help readers navigate, not to fulfill to the letter all project rules, which might work in most, but not all, cases. If the current solution is easier to use (and I think it is), then ignore all rules and stop worrying about it. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

While I would not particularly care whether a list article such as List of characters named Spike existed, I think the disambiguation page Spike should include all subjects commonly known as "Spike" regardless of whether such list existed. (And the dab page should only list those known as Spike in secondary sources, not only through in-world references). older ≠ wiser 15:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we should copy the format of "Signal"; on "Spike", we should list maybe one character named Spike if there's clearly one that's the equivalent of a primary topic (I don't think there is, but I'm not sure), then link to this page from there and list all the others, making this a set index. KSFT^C 19:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a primary topic. As far as I can tell, the best-known are all supporting characters in media franchises, and which one is "most best-known" probably depends on which franchise one is a fan of.

I agree. I think we should just make this a set index and link here from "Spike" without including all of these entries there. KSFT^C 19:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No one else has responded to this. If anyone disagrees, reply here now. If no one does soon, I'll go ahead and make the change. KSFT^C 15:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

What change precisely? It is already marked as a set index page and is linked from the disambiguation page. As I said before, don't care much whether there is a set index page of characters named "Spike" (as silly as that seems), but it should be titled descriptively such as List of characters named Spike. Any subjects (fictional, non-fictional or other) that are commonly known as "Spike" should be listed at the disambiguation page and Spike (character) should redirect to the disambiguation page marked as incomplete disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 16:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any response at all to the criticism that the sprawling one-page-fits-all approach as exemplified by Victoria is disadvantageous to the reader? Or does that simply not matter to you? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that as much of a problem to be honest. I think it is more helpful to have a one-stop-shop for all things commonly known as "Spike" alone rather than splitting content out. older ≠ wiser 16:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice that had already been done. I thought you weren't supposed to make changes like that during a discussion about the change. Oh well, I like the way it's currently set up, and there seems to be consensus not to change it again. KSFT^C 16:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Huh? What precisely about the format of signal do you think we should copy here? Signal looks to be a normal disambiguation page. If we followed that format, the spike (character) page would not be stand alone page. older ≠ wiser 19:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)