Talk:Star (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is part of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

I still fail to get the point whenever people remove information from a disambiguation page. The star (disambiguation) page is a case in point. I thought the whole idea was to provide those seeking knowledge with all the information there is about a particular subject, with all the different uses of a term. While including a rather obscure Student Action For Refugees (STAR), which I think is perfectly okay, deleting Pamela Anderson's novel Star (novel) and the Star of David (referred to by User:Ant as "redundant") is something I just don't understand.

Could those of you who also think that those two occurrences should not be included here please comment on their removal? <KF> 11:21, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think the point of a disambiguation page is to direct readers to their desired article. When someone types in "Star" do you think they were looking for "Star of David"? I don't think so, that search is too general (Just because David Beckham is a "star" footballer, he shouldn't be on this dab). Dab pages are not here to provide a definition for everything under the sun, just to get you to your article. On the Anderson novel, some believe that red links (links to artciles that don't exist yet) shouldn't go on a dab page. Personally I don't mind having Star (novel). --Commander Keane 15:04, September 10,

2005 (UTC)

Merge it. its just a dab page that doent say that its a dab page, we need all the links on one page. the dab page. merge one into the other, I dont care which - jedi of redwall

Contents 1 Continuing work 2 People named "Star"? 3 Proposed merge from The Star 4 Formatting of the article 5 Seeing stars 6 Interwiki links

[edit] Continuing work

Thanks for the edits, Keane -- this is really starting to look good!

I renamed some of the radio station names to their call signs; I checked to make sure there were no other links to the previous red-linked titles. Oh, and the former WMSR linked to a different radio station that's not a "Star"; the -FM suffix is part of the correct station's official call sign, per the FCC. Note there's some guidelines on station naming at Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations#Article title, if it comes up in the future (there are many more radio stations named "Star" out there).

Should The Star redirect here, or does it merit its own page? Either way, we need to reorganize to prevent duplication. Let me know what you think. — Catherine\^talk 15:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes when I bring a dab up to MoS standards I forget to actually see if the entries belong there. This happened with The Star. Is someone going to type in "The Star" and expect to find The Indianapolis Star? I don't think so, but I'd like some other opinions. On another note, I think The Star should remain as a separate dab, there are about 5 notable articles. However, on this article, the link to The Star should be moved down the bottom. --Commander Keane 05:55, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] People named "Star"?

Should this page include people named "Star" or "Starr", i.e. Kenneth Starr, Patrick Star? Just a thought.--Atlantima 00:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Starr (surname) — Swpb^talk.edits 19:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge from The Star

I've added a tag to The Star, proposing that it be merged into here. Some of the information is duplicated, some isn't. I think it makes sense to keep them all together and redirect that here. Anyone have any objections to me doing that? - N (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge it, then sort this list. It's in a random order at the moment (a geeky order too, technology is at the top, the important Star newspapers are at the bottom!). I'd suggest a one line mention of star, then everything else in sections. The sections should be sorted A-Z. Similar sections should be grouped, e.g. all categories to do with media, newspapers, TV, etc should become subcategories (===) of a ==Media=- category). Anything excessive should be trimmed. A dab page is to get people to their destination asap, it's not for listing everything under the... erm... sun. --kingboyk 08:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be merged - if people search for "THE Star", they're not looking for information on STARS. They're looking for things which are specifically called "The Star" - films, stories, whatever. Yes, some information is duplicated, but that should be no reason to merge them. I realize that they seem similar, but they're not, and merging them will make it more difficult for a user to find what he's looking for. It might be better to just add a link at the top, saying "for other uses, see 'The Star' or 'STAR'". Esn 05:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge that "the star" has a more specific meaning and there is no reason to make people looking for one of those uses to look through this huge list --T-rex 19:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. I'm fairly indifferent about this now, and there's clearly no consensus to merge. - Nzd (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting of the article

Some links are italized while others ain't. Can any one clarify?--Anupam Srivastava 12:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anupamsr. You can find a list of things that should be italicized in the Manual of Style. They're usually used for titles of published works, like books, albums and newspapers. - Nzd (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeing stars

Would it be worth adding a link to the page on Phosphenes, under the science section? I was looking for more info on this condition, but only knew it as "seeing stars". Perhaps the expression is too general to be included on the disambiguation? Thanks, Extenebris 14:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid it's too general. The purpose of disambiguation pages is to navigate readers to articles on all identically called entities (in this case, "(a) star"), but not to those which merely include or mention the word "star" in the title.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki links

I think it makes no sense to make interwiki links according to the meaning (or rather one of the meanings) of the word. Different meanings have different translations. The Estonian for star in astronomy is täht, for a famous person is staar (or täht), for the ship Star it is Star. The Russian for star is zvezda. But there is a journal Zvezda, and this is translated Zvezda in both Estonian and English. The situation I found was that this page linked to the Estonian disambiguation page et:Star (täpsustus) and so did the Russian disambiguation page for zvezda. This is nonsense and untenable. And so far we try to link the disambiguation pages according to the meaning such a mess is unevitable. So please think it through and revert your revert. Andres 02:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You removed 23 interwiki links. I doubt very much that you could know for a fact that the linked article in every single one of these languages was misdirected and unhelpful. Even if a particular interwiki link could link to a more accurate article, it should be retargeted, not removed entirely. If you have a problem with the fact that interlanguage links are by nature not always precise matches, bring it up on Help:Interlanguage links or at meta. — Swpb^talk.edits 14:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I could know because they were chosen by the meaning rather than the form. I don't think that retargeting is my duty when I remove bad links but I could do that if you promise that you don't revert because I don't want to work of no use.

It is clear that interwiki links are not entirely precise but they must not generate mess as it is the case here. Andres 05:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I made the interwiki links consistent throughout the wikis. Please don't revert. Andres 06:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you speak 23 languages? No? Then stop removing potentially helpful links and replacing them with nothing. I am adding back in the links you removed - please do not remove them again unless you have some seriously good reasoning for each one you remove. — Swpb^talk.edits 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand most of the languages we had interwikis here to, and for the remaining, I found the right links from indirect considerations. As I said, I made the links consistent throughout the wikis. I have good reasons for removing the links: adding inconsistent links will cause a hopeless mess due to the bots' actions. Andres 16:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)