From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject iconThis 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 or contribute to the discussion.

old talk[edit]

I respectfully disagree with the idea that an etymological discussion is unencyclopedic. In this particular case, it is hardly my fault that the main Doom article is about a computer game where an etymological discussion would appear out of place. Etymological discussions are particularly helpful on disambiguation pages, because it helps to elucidate the connection between otherwise unconnected lists of homophones. The etymology part may well be the nucleus of an article about the Anglo-Saxon system of jurisdiction, which ihmo should properly reside at Doom, with the present Doom article at Doom (computer game). dab () 17:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It is policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary). I disagree that entymology helps naivagion on a disambiguation page, dabs are here to here get you to you destination quickly (and you don't need entymology to do that), if you want to see the entymology you can - click on the Wiktionary link. --Commander Keane 17:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Etymology-like discussions are appropriate in encyclopedias, so long as it is significant to the article. Trivia etymology (such as the greek origin of a name) belongs in Dictionaries (in the 19th century everyone was taught Greek so it was useful, today its a relic for Greek specialists). Dictionary etymologies are very specific formats and contain certain types of information. Encyclopedia etymologies are more free formed and can expand on areas that dictionaries can not. They both play a role. That doesnt mean every encyclopedia article should contain etymological information, its case by case, but there is no rule that bans significant discussion of word origins in encyclopedia articles. The test is, is it significant, or is it trivia. Stbalbach 17:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

of course. We have many articles about words (such as Mannaz) that spend a lot of time discussing etymology. As I said, I would argue for an actual doom article, about the Anglo-Saxon concept, if there were not already so many links to "Doom", the computer game. Rather than contining this edit-war, I'll move that article somewhere else, such as dōm. dab () 14:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


Shouldn't Doom link to here by default rather than the computer game? No doubt the majority of people searching for Doom on Wikipedia are looking for the game, but that says more about Wikipedia's user demographic than it does about the most suitable way to construct (what is supposedly) an encyclopedia. - 20:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Doom can mean a lot of things. -- Stbalbach 13:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Doom 3 expansion[edit]

Am taking the liberty to add it to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs a disambiguation page[edit]

This article combines all of:

  1. Doom as a definition.
  2. Doom, the computer game.
  3. Doom used in other terms.
  4. Doom as in the world known artist Doomo Grande Phillips —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

These seperate subjects should probably be seperated and a disambiguation page added so that one can refine their search.

Which page should be default, though, is something I leave to someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Moved Doom the move to Movies
  • Resorted "Other Media" alphabetically
  • Resorted "Games" first, as it's the first entry alphabetically (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)