Talk:Lenin (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope 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.


The link you provided in your edit summary is not even policy. There is no good reason to exclude a link to John Lennon, who someone might mispell as "Lenin," or to the popular German film.

Please don't persist in ignoring the rules of the game.
We are not going to write policies for every common sense things, like, don't spit on the floor or don't piss on the wall. This type of pages serves a certain purpose: it is a technical page, for the means of navigation of written words, to distingush things that are exactly the same. It is not a page to list all possible phrases with this word. Also, there are thousands of ways some word may be misheard for another one, and we are not going to put them into one page. mikka (t) 21:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Only if we had a disambig page that was clogged and cluttered with scores of entries, or if someone was trying to use the page to advertise for someone or something that was rather unknown, would there be any possible practical reason to start excluding links.

You still have given no good reason to exclude the relevant links. The whole purpose of the disambig pages is so that people can find whatever they're likely to be looking for. "Lennon" is frequently confused with "Lenin," and someone who types in "Lenin" is also likely to be looking for information about the german film. So your insistence on following the letter of some "rule," which isn't even accepted as policy, at the expense of common sence and the convienience and ease of navigation of readers is extreemly unreasonable!

The links are irrelevant, according to the rule of the disambig pages, because the film is not called "Lenin". And if someone is confusin Lennon with lenin, the God help him, but not wikipedia. Policy or not, it is a community consensus, here, and ignoring it, you are putting your yourself out of community. Once again, we are not in a police state here and are not going to write a policy for each and every action. There is a reasonable tolerance, but yours is way off what is commonly accepted. mikka (t) 21:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Even the letter of the "guidelines" that you cite states that common misspelling are appropriate for disambig pages "there is a real risk of confusion" and also states that "misspellings on disambiguation pages can be listed in a separate section "Common misspellings" or "see also". This is a common practice on Wikipedia, and it it you who is being unreasonable, bordering on vandalism.

See, "Lenin" is not a "common misspelling" of "Lennon"; it is not a misspelling at all. Two words merely sound the same, but they are quite different in written form (with which, as Mikkalai correctly noted, the disambig page deal, and to which "the real risk of confusion" wording of the guidelines refer). Listing the movie, on the other hand, seems logical to me (to me personally), on the basis of the very same common sense mentioned above, but if most of the comments here are going to be against its inclusion, then all you and me can do is to state disagreement for the record. It may well be a borderline case, but I am definitely not going to lose my sleep over it and strongly recommend that you do not as well.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 23:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
We don't list phrases in disambig pages. We don't list Miss Saigon in the Saigon (although this is a borderline case) or The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby in the Nicholas or Adventure or Life articles. mikka (t) 00:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby is hardly a borderline case for any of the scenarios you so described. "Lenin", on the other hand, was the first thing I entered into the Wikipidia's search box a couple weeks ago when I was trying to recall the name of that same German movie. It was not that I expected to see it in a disambig page (simple search worked just fine), but the thought of that possibility crossed my mind.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I called "Miss Saigon" the borderline case. What you did is what people always do. When I want to find the word "disambig" on this page, I enter "disa" (both because I am lazy and because I suspect no other words start so), but this does not mean that we must have a redirect from disa ( WOW! who would have known such a word exists!) to disambiguation. Disambiguation pages are not to enhance the search in the way lists of articles by topic do ( List of English songs whose title includes nonsense-words or List of articles whose title includes word Lenin), but to resolve ambiguities. mikka (t) 02:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
...and yet no one complained when Staraya Ladoga was included in Ladoga (disambiguation), Primorsky Krai—in Primorsk (disambiguation), Rostov-on-Don—in Rostov (disambiguation), Turáni átok—in Turan (disambiguation), and (my personal favorite, because you said nothing then) Vovochka in Vladimir (disambiguation). All these, I suspect, violate the technical interpretation of the policy. Goodbye, Lenin is a fairly famous movie; it is only logical to assume that some people would expect to see its title on Lenin (disambiguation), policy nonwithstanding. This is when common sense comes into play.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 12:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


I'd say, that a German cloister Lehnin has much more grounds to be included in this disambiguation page, for its pronounciation is virtually identical to that of Ulyanov's pseudonim. --Barbatus 23:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Lennon links[edit]

Do not remove the links to Lennon disambig if there is not concensus for the removal. Also, the film link is useful, per comments above. GrouchoLennonist (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the removal is explained pretty well in the first section of this very page. If you wish to restart that discussion, by all means feel free, but please do not try to introduce the links whose removal has been already discussed and explained. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:17, December 28, 2009 (UTC)