Talk:Derek

Discussion on purpose of the article[edit]

I have just stumbled across this Special:Allpages/Derek. Unless someone has a better idea I am going to redirect this page to that list. Abtract 23:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That list is not an article page. It's a dynamic query of the Wikipedia database, and articles should not link to it for portability reasons. On the other hand, it would be a useful tool for building a complete list on this disambiguation page. — CharlotteWebb 21:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we already have a complete list. Abtract 21:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a complete list either. If an article does not exist yet, it will not appear in part of that search query. Also, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Please do not link to pages whose content is not persistently stored. — CharlotteWebb 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not consistently stored what ds that mean? And you don't answer the main point which is how can an inferior list be better than a superior one? Abtract 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a list. It's a database query. It's not part of the encyclopedia. It cannot be annotated. There is no log of appearances or disappearances from the list between viewings. I don't know how I could more clearly explain to you that other sites using Wikipedia content will not include this "so-called" list. Your recommendation that we rely on it is about as dismissive to the reader as saying "We gave up trying to count people named Derek, try Google instead", which would defeat the a large part of the purpose of disambiguation pages in the first place. Please do not remove the information that other editors have collected, including the occupation and years of birth/death for each person. — CharlotteWebb 22:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, brought up by the 3rv rule I will desist; life's too short to argue about it ... you may wish to look at Brian which suffers from the same problem. Abtract 23:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The self reference point is a good one and I was aware of it but unable to edit the special page to remove the link to Derek. If you know how that would be a useful thing for you to do . :) Abtract 22:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've completely misunderstood the meaning of "avoid self-references". Let me explain myself in the simplest possible terms: A Wikipedia article should not contain special features which would not function properly (or at all) when viewed somewhere besides Wikipedia. — CharlotteWebb 22:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you view wp outside wp? You seem to be hinding behind a supposed technicality and are not addressing my main point which is that this should be an article not a list ... the place for lists is the special place, which will always be more complete - how can that be wrong? As for the dates you will find I put those in! Abtract 22:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how many times I'll need to repeat myself. Mirror sites use copies of Wikipedia content in a read-only form, and we encourage them to do so. Special pages are maintenance tools, not part of the encyclopedia. The information you see in the query would not be reproduced on a mirror site because it is not stored in the database (which the mirror sites copy from), it is dynamically generated each time you view the "Special:" page. A disambiguation page is not a list of articles, it is a list of topics which may or may not have existing articles, or may even be discussed in only a small portion of a broader article. These would be important topics to include on the disambiguation page, though they would generally not appear in the page title query. — CharlotteWebb 23:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I understood that. You speak very authoritatively "and we encourage them to..." just for interest, where do you sit in the wp hierarchy? Abtract 00:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to agree with what CharlotteWeb has been saying, but also want to point out that, since the entire list of articles from Special:Allpages/Derek has been copied to this article, Redirects in that list are italicised. It should not be copied in it's entirety to this article. There are now a lot of duplicates (redirects) in this article. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 01:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now that I understand her point I am happy. Following Charlotte's "incomplete list" tag, I did indeed copy all the names from the ""Allnames" page to complete the list. I have started to make them into links and will remove duplication and categorise them in the fulness of time - unless of course you or Charlotte wish to do some of this work. We will then have an article about the name Derek with a (nearly) complete list in it. Oh I didn't understand the point about italics? Abtract 08:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point about italics is that the list on this page now contains list contains REDIRECTs, which are indicated by italic text in the Allpages list. For example, Derek Kirk redirects to Derek Kirk Kim - they are the same person and they are both in the list on this page. The italic text will help you find the duplicates. I recommend WP:DAB and MOS:DAB. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 10:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK no problem, I am going to remove all the duplications/redirects and leave only the original pages. :) Abtract 10:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finished for now[edit]

OK I have finished my self-imposed task. I am not entirely happy with the categoreies because a few people fall into two or more ... if anyone has a better way of organising the article please have a go, I'm done for now :) Abtract 00:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Credible reference?[edit]

Is this webpage seen as a credible source? JocK 00:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looked OK to me ... what do you think?Abtract 01:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sites with advertisement banners are suspect. Whilst you can include a link to such a site as further reading, references should be to the original publications. Suggest you dive into decent publications (like Hanks, Patrick and Flavia Hodges, A Dictionary of First Names, Oxford University Press), and incorporate these as reference. JocK 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ... over to you, dive away. ............... Are you following me? Abtract 22:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]