This disambiguation 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.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
The main information about MV Morion is to be found at the relevant list of Empire ships, not on the CHANT (ship type) page. User:Rogerb67 states that linking the ship's name to the list is against MOS:DAB. My opinion is that this is a case where WP:IAR should apply. Comments please. Mjroots (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not say that linking to the list is against MOS:DAB. I support linking to the list; however I would like the link to come from suitable text within the link, as described in the manual of style and per my edits [1] and [2]. There are thousands of cases precisely like this one across all DAB pages, and the way to deal with them is clearly stated in MOS:DAB#Items appearing within other articles. --Rogerb67 (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the link is the ship, which is quite correctly redirected to the appropriate article. IMO, that is what should be wikilinked, not the destination article with a piped link. Mjroots (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The use of unpiped dab-phrase-matching redirects is encouraged in the guidelines as well. I used piping anyway to properly format the link, also per the style guide. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the link as it currently is does satisfy MOS:DAB (it was never like this before), although from my point of view the linked section appears unlikely to ever have its own article; as this the reason stated for using a redirect, I still prefer my version. I will not change it however and will happily consider the matter closed. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
