Talk:Hunter (disambiguation)
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Sorting
[edit]How should the items on this page be sorted? This recent change was reverted here. Which do people think is better? 09:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I prefer the one that follows WP:MOSDAB, with articles of the form "Hunter (disambiguating phrase)" first. -- JHunterJ 12:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- The only thing I would do different is to split the top section into real things (like the HMS Hunter and Hunter's disease) and a different section for pop culture (video games, etc). The rest looks fine. Dread Pirate Westley•Aargh 01:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, maybe I'm a bit dense, but I absolutely can't understand why anyone could consider this revision to have (and I quote from the history) "better ordering and grouping" than this revision?
I would think that the opposite is true? What is "better" about the revision the article was reverted to? 86.56.48.12 14:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- It has articles of the form "Hunter (disambiguating phrase)" first. But I repeat myself. The formatting of the intro and group headers was unimproved, the pocket watch and name entries were reworded contrary to the guidelines, the See also entries were moved out of See also, and no Edit Summaries were used to indicate what problems were being addressed. A few groups could be used here (or the list is short enough to leave in one list), but see WP:MOSDAB for guidelines. -- JHunterJ 17:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- The manual of style is very nice but the most important part is "Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the information they want quickly and easily." Ordering it Hunter (something else) before other things is generally good, but you've got real things mixed in with fictional things; some additional splitting would be better, and then the question of, if you're going to have Hunter (game) in a different subsection from Hunter (disease), does it make sense to put Hunter, a character in Quake in yet a third section. Dread Pirate Westley•Aargh 17:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely. -- JHunterJ 17:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- The manual of style is very nice but the most important part is "Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the information they want quickly and easily." Ordering it Hunter (something else) before other things is generally good, but you've got real things mixed in with fictional things; some additional splitting would be better, and then the question of, if you're going to have Hunter (game) in a different subsection from Hunter (disease), does it make sense to put Hunter, a character in Quake in yet a third section. Dread Pirate Westley•Aargh 17:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I am changing the Left 4 dead reference of hunter from "infected boss" to "special infected" because saying it is a boss implies that there is some sort of a climactic battle, when hunters can do serious damage, but if countered quickly, are more of an inconvenience than anything else. Qazqaz136 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC).