Talk:Lincoln/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Old disambiguation discussion (2002-07-18)

Wait, why is listing people by last name not valid for disambiguation pages? I would guess that most accidental links to Lincoln will be for Abraham Lincoln. Of course you don't list everybody with that name, but I'd list people that are likely to be accidentally linked. — Toby Bartels, Thursday, July 18, 2002

He is listed. However, his name is in a "See also" section because his name was not simply "Lincoln". Disambiguation pages are for listing things that are named the same darn thing -- not as lists of people who happen to have a certain last name. However, I can think of no particularly pressing reason not to have such a list in a "see also" section. --maveric149

See-also lists would clutter a lot of articles. Perhaps it doesn't seem so bad on a disambiguation page, but doesn't seem necessary given the search box and the biography listing pages, so why make an exception for anybody?

Lincoln isn't somebody that happens to have the last name "Lincoln". Lincoln is Lincoln! If I say "Lincoln said ..." and insert a comment on any subject under the sun (not just politics), then Americans at least will assume that I mean Abraham Lincoln (assuming that the statement isn't anachronistic). We use disambiguation pages and blocks often for items that have naturally disambiguating titles. For example, Paris, Texas, is mentioned in the disambiguation block for Paris (or rather, the page that it redirects to, Paris, France), even though any link to that city really should be to Paris, Texas (the naturally disambiguated form) instead.

The reason that we do this, of course, is that people (principally newbies) might make accidental links to the ambiguous page. And you seem to agree that this is possible in the case of Abraham Lincoln, and agree that this page should be listed on Lincoln. Why, then, the unusual special treatment? Since (happily) you agree that the link should be here at all, we're arguing over style rather than content, but I don't see what makes this different from, say, John Walker. Or would you argue that that page should be nothing but "See also" ^_^? — Toby Bartels, Thursday, July 18, 2002

A last name does not a name make. In the context of an encyclopedia only an idiot would somebody's last name and reasonably expect that link to go directly to an article on that person (except for notable exceptions; most of which ancient). This is true even for the last names famous people like Einstein, Newton and yes Lincoln. However I do not object loudly when people list such names on disambiguation pages -- all I ask is that these names be placed in a "see also" section because these things only have peripheral validity (Abe Lincoln is not only known simply as "Lincoln" in any general context - he did have a first name). If somebody wanted to go to the trouble, I would not object to a page titled List of people with the last name Lincoln, but I frankly think such a thing would be a waste of time. Why not just use the search function as was previously mentioned? --maveric149

And only an idiot would expect a link to Paris to give a page about Paris, Texas, as has been often remarked. And Lincoln is definitely identified by only "Lincoln" in a general American context, as long as it's clear that it's a person. No, an encyclopedia article shouldn't link just to Lincoln, but some will. What most confuses me is how one can argue that the former president doesn't deserve to be mentioned on a disambiguation page but agree that he must be. After all, a disambiguation page is completely unnecessary in a perfectly constructed encyclopedia; its purpose is only to catch accidental links. Abraham is likely to be an accidental link, so he's in. Elmo is not, so he's out. (And of course I agree that the page listing all of the Lincolns is a waste of time; this issue involves only the Abrahams of this world, not the Elmos.) — Toby Bartels, Thursday, July 18, 2002

Let me say this again -- a link to Abraham Lincoln on this page.

I don't understand what this sentence is saying. It's missing a verb, and I don't know what that is.

Also looking at pages that link to this article I can find no cases where some one intended to link to the US president.

Indeed, all of the pages that link here refer, to the extent that they refer to anything here, to Lincoln, England. If that were the deciding criterion, then we could just make this a redirect. But instead we place what we think are likely accidental links. Furthermore, there may have been actual accidental links that somebody disambiguated in the past, and I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the original author concerning what might have been before. Indeed, I just disambiguated all of the accidental links (except for talk about the page itself), so if we go by what links here right now, then this page can be deleted! Of course, that would be silly; disambiguation pages exist because of what might happen in the future.

But his article in a 'see also' section on this page just in case.

Everything on a disambiguation page is just in case. Nothing should link to a disambiguation page, after all. What is the justification for a primary disambiguation list on a disambiguation page, and then additional material afterwards? Every link is in the same position: as something that somebody thought was a likely accidental link. There's no other reason to be on a disambiguation page; that's what they're for. (If anything, some of the cities should be removed, since they're less likely to be accidental links than the former president.)

What I am saying is that the person shouldn't be in the primary disambiguation list just because he happens to have a last name that is the same as the disambiguated title.

Nobody is making this argument. I'm not calling for putting Elmo Lincoln on this page (and wouldn't even if Wikipedia had an article on him).

Having his name in the primary list will only encourage spurious disambiguation pages where no real ambiguity exists. -- maveric149

I don't see what's spurious about it — but that's the argument, isn't it?

PS: What a useless stub user:jheijmans has created! This is evidence for a completely different problem, that I suspect that you and I will agree on more closely: We shouldn't put everything that we can think of on a disambiguation page but only what already has a presence on Wikipedia. — Toby Bartels, Friday, July 19, 2002

I disagree with that. I prefer to at least have everything on a disambiguation page that has been linked to, even if just once. The reason for this is that most things can be disambiguated in more than one way, and it would be good to do so consistently. Andre Engels 08:33 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)

I've lost the context here. What exactly do you disagree with? I'm guessing that you disagree with mav, but that may just be wishful thinking. — Toby 11:13 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

What I am disagreeing with is your statement that we should only put on a disambiguation page what already is on Wikipedia. Suppose the "Lincoln (automobile)" were not on the Lincoln page. Then someone else might find a link to Lincoln meaning the automobile, and create "Lincoln (car)". Number two might create a link to "Lincoln firm" and number three would write [[Lincoln automobiles|Lincoln]]. To avoid this type of spreading around a subject over various links, the Lincoln (automobile) link should be created on Lincoln as soon as one finds the thing as a subject of a link to Lincoln. As for the disadvantage of creating useless stubs: I don't think this stub falls in the 'useless' category, but even if it did, it could as easily be created from any of the other linking pages as from this one. You aren't suggesting removing all broken links to subjects that a useless stub could be written about, I hope? So why do so for disambiguation pages? Andre Engels 11:42 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

What you say doesn't make perfect sense to me, but before I try to figure it out, let me clarify something that perhaps you misunderstood: When I say that it should exist on Wikipedia first, I mean that it should be mentioned on Wikipedia. I do not mean that it should already have its own page on Wikipedia. (See my minor edit to John Walker for action backing up these words, albeit imperfectly done.) That understood, do you now agree with me? Or should I go over your post again and try to sort it out? — Toby 12:01 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

Ok, in that case I would say "I basically agree (although with a few exceptions)". The cases that I was talking about were exactly that - things that were mentioned (and even linked), but not in a page yet. What I was basically stating, was that if there is a link like [[Lincoln (automobile)|Lincoln]], there should be a link to "Lincoln (automobile)" on "Lincoln". Andre Engels 12:14 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

Then we agree (barring exceptions). When I did that complaining back in July, there were no links to Lincoln (automobile). Jeronimo was not only creating a stub but (in effect, and unbeknownst to him) an orphan stub. That was my complaint. (I would even agree with placing Lincoln (automobile) on Lincoln if there's a link to just Lincoln that refers to the automobile — although you should also disambiguate that link while you're at it. — Toby 12:20 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

Yes, there we agree - in fact, for me the thing goes usually the other way around - I want to disambiguate, and to do so I create a link to Lincoln (automobile), but when I do so, I create that same link on Lincoln as well. In the above part that you said was hard to follow, I basically stated that policy plus its reason: To ensure that the next time the thing is disambiguated, the same disambiguation is chosen. Andre Engels 12:32 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

Indeed, once I confirmed that you were confused as I suspected, I understood your paragraph. I also noticed that you perfected my job at John Walker — thanks! Of course, I should have directed you to Social Democratic Party, showing that I too now know how to do it perfectly ^_^. — Toby 12:59 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

It's not just disambiguation pages that need to be considered: the same rules will apply to pages where there is one primary meaning and variously minor or unrelated meanings: if the rules are too broad, practically every page will need a disambiguation block.

Why the hell is this a link to Lincoln, England. How stupid is that. Obviously Abraham Lincoln is famous that entering his last name should lead to a disambiguation page or better said Lincoln (the city) is not well known enough to justify it being the direct link under Lincoln. The old system with the entry Lincoln leading directly to a disambiguation page was more logical.

Proposal for Survey and Move

Lincoln, England is an entirely unsuitable first page for the Lincoln topic. Lincoln, England is a small city of some 86,000 of which most people are unfamiliar. I propose that Lincoln be made to redirect to the Lincoln (disambiguation) instead, and the current material at Lincoln be moved to Lincoln, England or some other appropriate link. The fact of the matter is that Lincoln, England is NOT the most notable Lincoln in existance. Lincoln, Nebraska is a city of 225,500 and is the capital of the state of Nebraska making it a much more notable city and more appropriate. Abraham Lincoln is by far the most well known use of the word Lincoln, and numerous other cities are listed under disambiguation which could be valid. At best the link is ambigious as to where it should point. At worst the current linking is wrong as there can be little doubt that Lincoln, England is the least notable of the three primary examples I have listed here. Since this discussion has failed to reach a consensus I am hereby motioning to begin a survey to attempt to find the best solution. My selection is that the survey consist of the following questions:

• Should the article Lincoln remain as it is, a reference to Lincoln, England?
• Should the article Lincoln be moved to Lincoln, England and Lincoln be changed to redirect to Lincoln, Nebraska?
• Should the article Lincoln be moved to Lincoln, England and Lincoln be changed to redirect to Abraham Lincoln?
• Should the article Lincoln be moved to Lincoln, England and Lincoln be changed to redirect to Lincoln (disambiguation)

Comments are appreciated Agriculture 1 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

I haven't contributed to any of these articles, so I don't know how much weight my opinion will have, but, for what it's worth, I think Lincoln should redirect to the disambiguation page, with the current article moved to Lincoln, Lincolnshire, which I believe is the standard format (see Boston, Lincolnshire). From my point of view, as a Brit, "Lincoln" means the one in Lincolnshire, and an automatic redirect to Lincoln, Nebraska would seem jarring; but, at the same time, I agree that the UK city, although very historic, is not notable enough to have the Lincoln page all to itself. I hope I'm not treading on anyone's toes here - I'm just a newbie, so feel free to shout me down! Nicola79 6 July 2005 13:06 (UTC)

Even newbie's have valuable opinions Nicola79, and we appreciate hearing your opinion, don't ever refrain from commenting just because you are new. Agriculture 6 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

I agree that 'Lincoln' should redirect to the disambiguation page. That precedent is used for the names of other presidents. The idea that a small city in England should be the most obvious example of the word is simply ludicrous; it's a matter that should have been resolved in 2002 when the first complaints were issued. Hopefully we can finally fix this mistake. Brendan OShea 7 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)

I have created the survey, scheduled to run for two weeks at the following location: Talk:Lincoln/Vote Agriculture 7 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)

Ordering of Prominence

Lincoln, Nebraska is more prominent than Abraham Lincoln. A simply test of this is the fact that it recieves twice as many hits on google. Agriculture 01:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to be critical, but let's just say that that lacks common sense. Google is only 1 test of prominence. It has many faults that I am certain others listed. In this case, simple common sense says it is somewhat misleading. --Noitall 01:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Not really, it's a pretty basic test that is useful in this case. While Abraham Lincoln is undoubtedly prominent, Lincoln, NE is the current head of the Nebraskan government. It's more currently prominent, and a dynamic element which is only likely to increase in prominence vs. a historical figure who will not accomplish anything new in the coming years. Agriculture 01:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I really don't want to debate something so lacking in common sense. I never said Lincoln, NE is not prominent. But we are talking about the man who many believe saved the U.S. Your Lincoln, NE started out as the village of Lancaster and was named after Abraham Lincoln. Ahh, how many places are named after Lincoln, NE? --Noitall 01:56, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Google "abraham licoln", then "lincoln, nebraska" and "lincoln, ne" --JimWae 02:02, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

Comments such as "I really don't want to debate something so lacking in common sense" simply point out your ignorance. Instead of attacks, why not present facts instead? Yes, Abraham Lincoln was a very important US President. Lincoln, Nebraska is, however, currently more prominent and important to the world. It isn't a matter of who it was named after, or how many places were named after it. It is simply a matter of which is more important and prominent right now. Examples:

• Cleveland redirects to Cleveland, Ohio. Not Grover Cleveland or Moses Cleaveland (for whom it was named).
• Washington redirects to the state of Washington, not George Washington

Etc, perhaps the way to do it is to mention that it refers to many prominent locations named for Abraham Lincoln. However this doesn't work in the case of Lincoln, Lincolnshire. Agriculture 02:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Some ideas are so dumb that, when someone refuses to see something so obvious, they are just being obstenant for no particular purpose. All the U.S. Lincolns are named after Abraham Lincoln. Children study Abraham Lincoln and if we are really really lucky, they will know that Lincoln NE is even in the U.S., let alone the capital of some state in the mid-west somewhere. Books by the most prominent authors are written about Abraham Lincoln, still to this day. Miniseries and TV feature him constantly. Ahhh, it is been some time since anyone from my state thought much of anything one way or the other about Lincoln NE. If we are going to debate something, let's try to debate something serious, ok? --Noitall 02:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Your continued use of attacks suggests that you have neither the maturity nor ability to actually hold a discussion in an adult forum. You have your opinions, I have mine. Notice however that in an adult setting such as this I stick with opinions and do not insist on calling your opinions "dumb" or "lacking in common sense".

Furthermore to suggest that miniseries and TV features are more prominent than the seat of government for the state of Nebraska is basis. If you'd like to rephrase your arguement however, feel free. Agriculture 02:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I am mistaken. I really think we need to do some research and change the Lincoln, Nebraska page to properly reflect its prominence. You can help. I thought up a few questions to answer: How many miniseries feature Lincoln, Nebraska (boy, that would be exciting!)? Did Lincoln, Nebraska really save the Union? How many monuments are in the most prominent place in Washington, D.C. named for Lincoln, Nebraska? By the way, where is Lincoln, Nebraska? If anyone can think up more questions to reseach, feel free to add on. --Noitall 02:32, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Explain exactly where miniseries indicate prominence? How many miniseries have you seen on any place? How do they define prominence? Your other questions are of course simply bait in an attempt by you to continue to be uncivil in your discourse. If you continue as such I will be forced to refer your behavior to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and ask a moderator to deal with your flagrant violation of Wikipedia policy. Instead of playing this game of uncivil discourse, why don't you actually attempt to make an argument for your position and possibly propose a compromise as I did? Agriculture 02:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

After you help me with the above research we need to do, you can further consider the idiotic Google analysis. Abraham Lincoln should get "credit" for every "Lincoln" googled (with the exception of Lincoln, Lincolnshire). Every one of those Lincolns, including Lincoln, Nebraska, were named after Abraham Lincoln. Thus, by definition, Abraham Lincoln has many multiples of Google hits more than Lincoln, Nebraska. --Noitall 02:39, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

You will note that I started this being very courtious, giving you plenty of time to realize your argument was so lacking in common sense. Unfortunately, this typewriter was unable to send to you by express mail a common sense pill. But I did some research for you on Google, so perhaps this will help [1]. Good luck! --Noitall 02:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Once again I will urge you to post some sort of argument or refutation rather than ridiculous and uncalled for personal attacks. Agriculture 03:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Abraham Lincoln is a much more likely search target than Lincoln, Nebraska for people who reach this article by typing "Lincoln". Abraham Lincoln should be listed 1st, Lincoln, Nebraska should be listed second. But this is a very silly thing to argue about. Rhobite 03:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, even about the silliness, and even understanding that I participated in such ridiculous arguments. --Noitall 03:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Is it a silly thing to be argued? Prior to today when it was deemed appropriate that Lincoln should house a disambiguation page, Lincoln, Lincolnshire resided under the article Lincoln, indicating that others thought it was the most likely search target. I would argue that Lincoln, Nebraska given its prominent role in government, business, and in the past history make it a likely search target. It certainly bears more significance for those outside of the states, or at least enough to warrant discussion. Agriculture 03:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pretty silly dispute as disputes go. No matter what order the articles are listed in, readers will be able to find the information they're looking for. It is much better to have this disambig page than redirect to Lincolnshire, as it was before. That was the correct move. Rhobite 03:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln is most certainly more prominent than Lincoln, Nebraska (and I can say this as a current resident). If the order on the disambiguation page is relevant in any way, then the former should appear before the latter.

However, this discussion has turned into a quite silly exchange of "LOL i know bettAR THan you (insert relevant, but incorrectly presented information here)" and "stfu you're mean i'm not listening anymore". Quite frankly, both Noitall and Agriculture are at fault in this one. Noitall should have been more mature in sharing his/her findings with Agriculture, but Agriculture should have been mature enough to sift through Noitall's crap to find the relevant facts, rather than simply ignoring him/her.

I think the real problem is that Lincoln, Nebraska is already listed in the section Places in the United States. Why it needs to be in the disambiguation multiple times is beyond me. I would recommend taking it out of the first section, and leaving it only in the Places section. Stack 13:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Can this issue be considered resolved, or is an RfC (on the ARTICLE/NAMING/ORDERING, not the inappropriate RfC on specific users) in order? Tomer ^TALK 04:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC) P.S.: Please note...I've removed the "notable" Lincolns, as the classification as "notable" is purely a POV judgment call, and (CLEARLY) an attraction for editorial disputes. They're all "Lincoln" and they're all "notable" in their own right. I would be pleased to hear that we can all agree that if they weren't notable that they'd be valid candidates for VfD. Tomer ^TALK 04:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that really skips 2 steps. This page assumed the place of the Lincoln(diambiguashion) page. Many people made many arguments (not just the one here). A vote was taken, see Talk:Lincoln/Vote, and, without stating everyone's argument (I'm sure that would cause another dispute), many voted thinking that this page could be modified to have Abraham Lincoln and a couple others. After all, any time a primary page and a disambiguation page used, there is always a choice made. Other than the (dumb) argument that I participated in before, I have not seen others dispute the 4 up there. Although I am obviously not a fan of Google references replacing common sense, the Google representation for references related to Abraham Lincoln is 36,100,000 (or more than 7 times references related to Lincoln, NE), and it goes drastically down from there.--Noitall 06:50, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I was being bold. I did, believe it or not, waste 15-20 minutes of my life reading the quibbling and nitpicking that preceded my "interference" here. I understand my "boldness" skipped two steps, but I also think that my "boldness" made both steps utterly irrelevant. If anyone can honestly say that the wording "notable Lincolns" is worth keeping, please let me know, so I can go ahead and nominate all the "non-notable" Lincolns for VfD, since they clearly don't belong in WP. As I said above, making a list of all the Lincolns X# of editors feel are "most noteworthy", and duplicating them on what is clearly a disambiguation page is nothing more than a rv-war and argument magnet. Instead of arguing about "which Lincoln should be mentioned at the top?" I think a much better way to spend one's time is by making sure that everything that actually points to Lincoln be disambiguated to point to the correct Lincoln article. So, in Nebraska, change Lincoln to Lincoln, etc. This entire discussion is almost ludicrous in its pettiness. Tomer ^TALK 08:25, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

As you point out, "notable" is not the correct term to use. --Noitall 14:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I see someone has gone ahead and reintroduced redundancy and POV to the page by putting several of their pet Lincolns back on top of the page. Tomer ^TALK 20:14, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Fixing the links to Lincoln

I see from the list of what links here (before I fixed the links) that the majority of th elinks were assuming Lincoln in the UK. Not surprising, the American habit (as I have observed) is to always put the State after a placename, while the British don't do the sme with county. GraemeLeggett 15:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and Cleanup

As I said in my edsum and earlier here on this talk page, putting "most important Lincolns" on top of the page introduces POV, since it requires a judgment about "this Lincoln is more important than that Lincoln" and "this Lincoln is sufficiently important to warrant prominent mention". This is not what disambiguation pages are for. If you're worried that people might get confused, or that readers might have to scroll through the list looking for the correct Lincoln, the solution is to go fix the links that point to Lincoln and change them so that they point to the correct Lincoln article. The cleanup tag is on there because in selecting certain Lincolns for prominence, in violation of NPOV, repetitive tautological redundancy is introduced to the disambiguation page, which, it should go without saying, is bad writing. Tomer ^TALK 20:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I support removal of prominent Lincolns. Agriculture 20:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I made my point known that someone searching just for "Lincoln" is probably searching for "Abraham Lincoln" and it should be noted near the top. But I will not be editing this. Whatever you all decide will be it. --Noitall 21:45, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I understand the argument. The fact of the matter is that the number of "important" Lincolns is subject to mushroom as each person who thinks whatever pet Lincoln they have also deserves prominent placement. Anyone who searches for "Lincoln" looking for "Abraham Lincoln" will find the dab page and will find Abraham Lincoln listed under Lincoln#People. If they're looking for Abe, I'm sure they'll know he was a person. If they're looking for the car, they'll know it's a car. If they're looking for the shiretown of Lincoln, they'll know it's a town. Putting "important Lincolns" on top is, as I said, a judgment call, and therefore inappropriate. Duplicating links within what is clearly a disambiguation page is just plain bad style. Tomer ^TALK 23:30, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• I say do whatever you want to the article to take the NPOV and clean-up tags off. --Noitall 05:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The page is simply unacceptable in its current state. The first line makes it sound like this is some sort of stub article for the town in England and that somehow all of the listed topics are related to it, which is simply false (except in the most tenuous, useless sense). The multiple clean-up boxes are inappropriate; perhaps we can remove the "clean-up" one, since neutrality seems to be the primary concern. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Can we all be friends now? Tomer ^TALK 06:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

The latest version is ridiculous - no TOC & no easy way to find the most commonly searched Lincolns. This is a disambiguation page and about 100 more Lincolns could be added. Has everyone gone crazy? - the page is harder to use than ever now --JimWae 06:50, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

I agree, the TOC is necessary and I am adding it back. Agriculture 06:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Fine. I don't care about the TOC. I only took it out because someone else had earlier. However, to address your point, Jim, the best way to find "most commonly searched Lincolns" is a non-sequitur: not only is there no way of quantifying the "most commonly searched Lincolns", but to repeat myself for the third or fourth time, duplicating links on the top of the page is bad form. That said, what I'd like to address now is the fact that some of the "Other" Lincolns should probably be included in other sections. Hugh of Lincoln, for example, was obviously a person. At the same time, I'm thinking it would be more prudent to alter the headings on the "Places" to the more specific "Municipalities", since there are several "Places" in "Other" that are listed in "Other" specifically because they're not municipalities, but are, instead, "other places". Thoughts? Tomer ^TALK 07:05, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

How likely that someone looking for Hugh of Lincoln will type Lincoln instead of Hugh? There are too many there already. There are many decisions already made on wikipedia regarding which articles get to "keep the name" & which ones get special links on that page to disambiguation pages & which do not even get mention on that page and appear only on the disambiguation page & their own rightful page). There are many on this page that we can decide are NOT very likely - based on alternative names they already have. There are engines that can tally up # of searches & which items get chosen most often from search pages. Burying the most likely request is not helpful. Are you suggesting that there's no way to make this page easy for readers to use?--JimWae 07:16, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

Hopefully HorsePunchKid's moving the dab notice mootifies your concern. I am not suggesting that there's no way to make the page easy for readers to use, I'm suggesting that it is easy for readers to use, without duplicating links. Are you suggesting that someone who manages to type "Lincoln" into a search box and winds up at Lincoln is simultaneously incapable of using their mouse to find the Lincoln they were looking for? Tomer ^TALK 18:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I did not say the page was unusable - I said it's not as easy as it could be. I do not find repetition on a page a matter of as much concern as making the page user-friendly. Many, many wiki pages have duplicates links. The page is a bit better now that it has a TOC again, but still not easy for those looking for the "most likely" things --JimWae 18:59, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

The only thing that bothers me now is the "Other things named Lincoln" heading. Partly because it sounds sort of odd; we're on the Lincoln page, so saying "named Lincoln" seems redundant. I couldn't think of a better phrasing, though; maybe someone else can. The fact that the automotive marque is so far down the page and under this awkward heading seems undesirable to me, but I'm willing to admit that my interest in cars may be greater than the average Lincoln-searcher. —HorsePunchKid→龜 18:31, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at above when I mentioned Hugh of Lincoln. I'll try to come up with a proposal by the end of the day. Tomer ^TALK 18:43, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Fawcett...although "miscellania" isn't actually a word, it sounds much less like "wastebasket" than "Other things named Lincoln" did. Tomer ^TALK 18:48, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Current version

To my eyes, the current version of the page looks entirely acceptable - with the TOC, it takes only a glance to find exactly what you're looking for. I find it hard to understand why there has been such a huge kerfuffle about all of this. Fawcett5 18:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This version looks fine to me as well; I can't see what duplicating "Important Lincolns" at the top would do, beside making this long disambiguation page even longer, and inviting inevitable future edit wars about which Lincolns were "important". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Congrats :) --Noitall 21:08, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

G-Man's makeover

I don't feel too strongly about it either way, but check out similar pages like Bush. Perhaps it would be better to be consistent with that style, even though I think the pre-G-Man version was slightly better (for example, leaving the disambig notice at the top). Are there enough other examples like Bush to make it worth conforming to that style? —HorsePunchKid→龜 18:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not particularly keen on G-Man's purported "making user friendly" edit, since it once again opens up the floodgates for other "main" Lincolns. This was, in fact, the cause of a recent edit war. I don't think it's any "friendlier" to decide for users which are the "main" Lincolns. As I've said previously here, if someone looking for Lincoln, Nebraska winds up at Lincoln, they're going to know it's a placename in the US. Now it's been removed from US placenames and put back at the top. I thought this issue had been resolved. Hope in one hand... I would be much happier if G-Man had participated in the lengthy discussions here on the talk page instead of just going ahead and reinserting what have previously been causes of contention. Tomer ^TALK 04:53, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that some discussion would have been a good thing, but then I can understand someone coming to this page and not realizing it had been the subject of a lengthy dispute. ;) Please check out G-Man's original edit, though. It had no "main" section, and I think it was actually quite good in terms of being... noninflammatory. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. As I said above, it was the "making user friendly" edit, specifically this edit, to which I was referring above. His first edit I liked. Now I feel like we've taken a couple steps back. Tomer ^TALK 07:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Very much agreed. Can't quite just revert back to G-Man's first version since a few links have been added, but I would support going back to that format. "Main places" is contentious and should be avoided. Of course that doesn't mean that the note about the English county being the first has to be removed, and it will still stick out to those who are interested. —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I would respectfully suggest that the people section be made first for many reasons. Thank you. --Noitall 20:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be fine. It wouldn't follow the style of the Bush article, but then, neither do Smith and Johnson, and they've got the people first. —HorsePunchKid→龜 21:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The version I saw when I first came here wasn't particularly good. There is a long established principle of 'primary disambiguation' which it seemed to ignore. It appears clear to me that Lincoln, Nebraska - a state capital and the largest place called Lincoln. Plus Lincoln in England - the original Lincoln and an ancient city with a history going back to Roman times. Are clearly what most people would be looking for when they look up Lincoln.

Regarding people. Who on earth would look up Lincoln and expect to go to Abraham Lincoln or whatever?. G-Man 21:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself (unfortunately!), but I would first expect typing in "Lincoln" to take me to Abraham Lincoln and second to Lincoln (automobile). (Yes, I'm American.) Lincoln, Nebraska would be somewhere inspecifically below those two in the list, and Lincoln, Lincolnshire would not even be on the list, since I'd never heard of it. (Yes, I'm ignorant.)

As to "primary disambiguation", Bush, Smith, and Johnson all do not have anything that I would describe that way. They have a nice introductory sentence that this article is lacking, but that's it. Do you happen to have any better examples than these ones that I picked out? —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree almost completely. To me, Lincoln is the President and maybe the car. It would never occur to me to search for Lincoln, Nebraska this way. I asked my Australian family what they thought was "Lincoln". All said the President. I've also asked people at work and got the president or car; asked French co-workers and they all said the President. I'll keep looking, but have yet to have anyone suggest anything else. Bollar 00:41, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Another thing -- anyone who is halfway familiar with Wikipedia will know to type Abraham Lincoln and Lincoln, Nebraska, and they'll never see this page, but they've got a much lower probability of figuring out how to find Lincoln, the car. Bollar 00:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to move forward

I started writing this, and it's become a lot longer than I intended it to be. I beg your indulgence: please read it carefully, and, if possible, put comments in the comments section I put at the bottom, so that those who come after you can read it in its entirety as I've proposed it. I'm not opposed to alterations, but I'd like my proposal itself to remain intact. Here begins the proposal:

I would like to respectfully submit that we put the links back into their respective sections and open the disambiguation page with the following (or some variation thereupon):

Now a widespread name, Lincoln is originally a city in eastern England. The city was founded as Lindum in 1075 around a castle built in 1068 by William I. When England was united and organized into counties, Lincoln became the shire town of the newly formed Lincolnshire (sometimes clipped to simply Lincs). The town later lent its name as a surname. The most widely known person with the surname Lincoln is Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the United States of America. Various municipalities in the Commonwealth of Nations are named in honor of Lincoln, Lincolnshire, and a plethora of municipalities and geographic features in the United States are named Lincoln (or contain "Lincoln" in their names), in honor of the former president. These include:

Obviously, the "surnames" bit is rather weak: it would be well-served by the addition of a one-sentence or even phrase discussion of the adoption of surnames in England (as I understand it, the adoption of surnames in Europe was largely a result of the Napoleonic Wars...which occurred well after the adoption of surnames in England, AFAIK).

This blurble at the top is, to me at least, a nice introduction to the origin of the name "Lincoln". Since the top becomes a mini article, there's no redundancy problem with putting the currently offending "main" Lincolns down below where they belong (i.e., it's no longer a "cleanup" issue).

Incidentally, there are 5 mountains named Mount Lincoln in the US, which aren't currently mentioned here.

I should also note here that of the 13 placename entries for Lincoln in Merriam Webster's Geographical Dictionary, the 13th placename is Lincoln, Lincs. Admittedly, it's an American publication, but...(consider that #5 is "or Lincoln Center*, and #8 is Lincoln, Nebraska)...

Given the historical perspective of the origin of the name Lincoln, I think moving the People section back up to the top would be chronologically illogical, eventhough I at one time supported the move.

OK. Anyways, I'm typing all this, and thinking, well, why don't I just do it, and then revert it, but give y'all a diff to look at so that you can see how it will look without having to cut and paste it in there yourselves. So here you go: check out this diff. Tomer ^TALK 01:02, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I changed the lead sentence to say "Now a widespread name, Lincoln is originally a city in eastern England."... Doing so makes the article look like this instead. Tomer ^TALK 01:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Please note that if my proposal isn't accepted, that we really should include the thing about the 5 Mount Lincolns somewhere... Tomer ^TALK 01:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I considered it and it is far different than I originally thought or wanted, but I actually think it improves the whole subject. This is the appropriate place to talk about how all these things were named Lincoln and this does it. I applaud the effort. --Noitall 01:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent work, and thank you for taking the time to put forth a detailed and constructive proposal. The introductory paragraph you've produced is exactly the sort of thing this page needs. Any minor copy-editing it might need can be done once it's been put into the article. (Nothing obvious; just a couple of extraneous commas.) —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to go ahead and put it in as the new version. Hopefully this doesn't cause problems. And about the commas, I use them as pause markers in speech, so sometimes I end up with "extra" ones according to the proverbial bean counters who hold the strings on the comma bag.  :-p Fix away, here goes. Tomer ^TALK 03:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Very constructive proposal, will make the page much more useful. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm a frequent user and very infrequent contributor, and I landed here after a search for "Lincoln," going after the man, obviously. I must say I was pretty annoyed that Lincoln, the man wasn't *at least* a prominent link at the top. Every schoolchild in the US is going to look at the Wikipedia page for Lincoln, the man, at some point, not to mention zillions of Civil War buffs, people arguing about racism, habeas corpus during wartime, and so on. If you total it all up hundreds of man-hours must have been wasted by people scrolling through some relatively pointless info about Lincoln, England. --vinc Dec 3 2005 4:28 EST

Countless manhours have been wasted fighting about this already. This was the option that the most people agreed upon. Please review this. Tomer^TALK 05:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree with Tomer. Secondly, the information about Lincoln, England is far from pointless! It provides valuable information about the history and importance of the moniker. Thirdly, Abraham Lincoln is the second link under the "People" section and even mentioned prominently in the second paragraph of the article; hardly difficult to find. Lastly, Wikipedia is not purely for Americans, and the current version of this article serves as a good, internationally-aware compromise. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-04 05:33:30Z

I didn't expect it to be changed and I wasn't requesting that. However, I think the current setup is rather silly and would be happier if future discussions of this type were settled differently. Is there some more appropriate page for expressing this sentiment?

If the sentiment is that you don't want it to be changed, this is the place to express that. If you think the current setup is rather silly, this is the place to discuss that. If you have a suggestion for some other way discussions of this type were settled (although this issue wasn't a result of settling discussion, it was a happy medium as a result of dispute resolution and an edit war between half a dozen editors), the place to discuss that is most likely at Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Hope that helps. Tomer^talk 04:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Don't support: I'm sorry, but the mini-article at the top makes this page look butt-ugly. The page with the summary doesn't look anything like any disamb page in Wikipedia, and **completely** violates the disambiguation style guideline.

The style guideline says a disambiguation page should "contain links only". Why? We don't need to know that Lincoln was a president, a place, and that Lindum was the original name of the shire town Lincoln-- they want quick links to the real article they're looking for. - User:Cws125

The choice to add {{disambig}} to the page was not my idea, especially not to the bottom and top, that was, I believe, JimWae's idea, and I don't like it at all. That said, I don't consider it to be a big enough issue to warrant fighting over. As for whether or not it violates the MoS for dab pages, great. Use that as a reason to remove the templates. As for the rest of your complaint, it sounds like the best way to handle it is to remove all the links below the opening paragraph. Is that really what you're hoping to accomplish? Tomer^talk 06:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I take it back. I see that the user is not entirely anonymous, just neglected to sign in, at least for these edits. That said, half the user's contributions over the course of the past year [2] have been on Abraham Lincoln High School (San Francisco). Apologies for having called you an anon, Cws125. Tomer^talk 06:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just a little taken aback because the disambiguation page was (at the time) a little sloppy and looked completely unlike a disambiguation page. I guess without the top disambiguous bar it isn't that that bad. I do think, however, there should be "Lincoln may refer to:" at the bottom of the min-article to make it more clear that this is disambigous page. -Cws125

Well, I agree. It was odd...I'm glad it's gone, and I hope it doesn't come back. That said, I reinserted my wikilinkings for Lincoln College and University of Nebraska-Lincoln which were removed for some unexplained reason, and I removed the link to the disambiguation page for Lincoln High School since there's no reason to point to it—everything in that disambig page is already included on this page. I guess I'm not opposed to putting a link to that dab page back in, but it shouldn't use {{main}} since it doesn't actually point to an article. Tomer^talk 09:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh...and I agree...the "Lincoln may refer to: " thing is a fine idea. Tomer^talk 09:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentence about surnames

Can someone with a bit more background fix up the bit about surnames slightly so that it doesn't sound quite so disjointed? I'm thinking just a one-phrase or one-sentence statement about the adoption of surnames in England would be fitting here, to explain how Lincoln went from city name to surname. (I was going to recommend an etymology of the progression from Lindum to Lincoln as well, but that'd probably be more appropriate at Lincoln, Lincolnshire.) Tomer ^TALK 03:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Possibly erroneous assertion

The first sentence asserts that the US municipalities are named in honor of Abraham Lincoln. While this is undoubtedly true for the vast majority of them, it is probably not true for a number of Lincolns in eastern seaboard states. Does anyone have the time to go through and asterisk the ones that were more likely named in honor of Lincoln, Lincolnshire instead (i.e., founded prior to 1861, in fact, probably prior to 1865)? Interest? Tomer ^TALK 03:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I will try to look into whether they are named for Abraham Lincoln (e.g., Lincoln, NE). I found one error, Lincoln, Massachusetts was named after Lincoln, England. --Noitall 04:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I realize it's a lot to ask, Noitall, but would you mind making checking this stuff out and making clarifying the distinctions your primary mission for today? (at least until you finish) Tomer ^TALK 10:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Other concerns for this articlette

GraemeLeggett, are you still working on dabbing everything that points here? How goes your progress? I know you started the project at one point. Are you content to finish it yourself, or would you like assistance? Tomer ^TALK 10:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln, NE and the car

Shouldn't they be in the intro paragraphs somehow? They're probably the #2 and #3 intended targets and we really shouldn't force people to wade through countless lines of text just to find them, should we? I came up with a rather elegant way of including the car (if I do say so myself) and a rather unelegant way of including the city; ideas, anyone? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Without some sort of citation regarding what the #2 and #3 intended targets of a search for "Lincoln" might be, your assertion amounts to little more than idle speculation. It was exactly this sort of speculation and fighting about "which is 2, which is 3, which is 1" that led to both the car and the city being originally excluded from the intro...not because they're not important, but because if that's what a person arrives at this page in search of, the page should be designed to let them find them w/o making assumptions about what they came looking for. Instead of tacking random "oh, my Lincoln is more important the rest"-supposition-supported Lincolns onto the lead, they were all, except for the original Lincoln, removed from the lead. While Lincoln, Lincs is undoubtedly not the most likely most-sought object of a search for "Lincoln", it is the unequivocable source of the name, and therefore entitled to the most prominent mention in an article entitled simply "Lincoln". The form the lead took before Lincoln, NE and the car were reinserted into it, was the best NPOV approach, and, IMHO, really should have been left that way. Regards, Tomer^talk 06:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Lincoln

Keep in mind that many American places, especially in the South and Northeast, are actually named after Revolutionary War hero Benjamin Lincoln, a great and famous American in his own right. He has almost as substantial a claim on the name "Lincoln" as good old Abe does. Now that B. Lincoln is included on the disambiguation page, I think that is where any search for "Lincoln" should begin. -- Cranston Lamont 19:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned long ago, it would be nice if someone has the time, to go through and note which "Lincoln" all the various Lincolns are named in honor of, whether they be directly for Lincoln, Lincs, for the erstwhile POTUS, for some other city named Lincoln, or whatever. Thus far, I haven't found the time to do so. Tomer^talk 06:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Lindum Colonia

Lindum Colonia refers specifically to the original Lincoln Roman settlement. But it currently redirects to this disambiguation page. Surely it deserves a page by itself or redirection to Lincoln, Lincolnshire? I wanted to use this in my article on Hackthorn to correctly show its history and the existing page was of little use when the reader has already heard that it is near Lincoln.Dsergeant 10:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It should indeed have better been redirected to Lincoln, Lincs. My guess is that the redirect was never changed when the firestorm was quelled here over "which Lincoln should reign supreme". I see that it presently has its own article, which is good...so the question is, I trust, now moot. Cheers, Tomer^talk 06:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Surname

Does Abraham Lincoln's surname & the surname Lincoln in general indicate ancestors from Lincoln, England or Lincolnshire? Ffda (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

For someone who doesn't know anything about the name Lincoln, the current introduction is not very helpful because it doesn't answer to the basic question "What is it?". 16@r (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Lincoln/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Due to the importance of the name Lincoln and its creation being in what is now Lincolnshire and Lincoln being the capitol of the region, I have put this page in the WikiProject Lincolnshire. --BSTemple (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)