|WikiProject Mountains||(Rated Disambig-class)|
I'm not sure if Blue Mountain and Blue Mountains are sufficiently distinct to be separate disambiguation pages. Particularly those whose first language doesn't use plurals (Oriental languages) would find this too minor a distinction. Perhaps they should be combined? —EncMstr (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I agree that they should be one page; however, there is precedent for splitting at Black Mountain/Black Mountains and White Mountain/White Mountains. The idea to split the Blue Mountain came from User:Figaro at Talk:Blue Mountains (Australia), who seemed to have a clear opinion on it. I didn't feel too strongly one way or the other. That discussion should be referenced in any future decisions about this merge. Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll help. Thanks, Tesscass. Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- If I get a chance I may even chip in myself, probably over the weekend. Cheers . Adam (talk) (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I moved the "List of Blue Mts topics" back to its original place where I put it on the dis page. The whole idea of doing a list of articles on the Blue Mts was that when people go to the dis page, they see the list of articles and then they have all the articles at their fingertips. That way, they can see what's available and don't have to go stabbing in the dark. That's the point of having a list of articles on the Blue Mts. I didn't do it just to amuse myself.
I might add that it's not a list of topics, it's a list of articles. There's a difference.
Looks like someone wants to have a revert war over the list of articles. Is it so hard to see why the list of articles should be at the top on the dis page? It helps people find articles they want on the BMs. that's the idea of it.
Have moved the list back to the main list, where it should be, because it gives people the opportunity to see all Blue Mts articles at their fingertips, which was the whole point of having the list in the first place. It all comes down to helping people. If anyone can't see the point of helping people, please let me know and I'll explain it to you.
- While I could probably live with the current suggested compromise, this arrangement is not the way to go. Ie, we don't substitue the *main* article with a subsidary article. --Merbabu (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think we can call a truce at this point. My point was simply that, since there are so many articles on the BMs, it was logical to have a list of them so people can see what's available. I don't know why people had so much trouble seeing the logic of it.
- Having a list of articles related to the Australian entry is fine. Linking to it from the Australian entry's article is necessary. Linking it at a "See also" from a disambiguation page is questionable, but okay if it will avoid an edit war. Disambiguating it as if it were ambiguous with "Blue Mountains" (not the Australian ones but the phrase in general) is incorrect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)