Talk:Stoke

Stoke is a very common name. The Stoke page currently redirects to Stoke-on-Trent. It is a more logical arrangement to have Stoke as a disabig page rather than having the Stoke (disambiguation) page. Alan Liefting 5 July 2005 08:08 (UTC)

Untitled

Oppose. This is a big page that needs this suffix in its title to clarify it is a dis-ambiguation page, not a list. Georgia guy 5 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)

It does not need the disambiguation suffix in the article title to make it a disambig page. The are many article that are disambig pages and all they have is the {{disambig}} template. Stoke would be an article that is a "list" of various seperate items which makes it a disambig candidate. Alan Liefting 6 July 2005 08:31 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a bad idea. Stoke-on-Trent is the most important Stoke by far. Dunc|☺ 6 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)

That is an opinion. For me Stoke, New Zealand is more important. For the wider Wikipedia user entering Stoke should give all most important references to Stoke so that the likely choice can then be made. Alan Liefting 6 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)

To clarify, I say it is a big dis-ambiguation page; specifically, one that is too large to reach the {{disambig}} template without scrolling. Georgia guy 6 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)

Obviously the disambiguation page would be limited to the more important references. Alan Liefting 6 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)

Alan Liefting, can you clarify what the "most important references" means?? Georgia guy 6 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)

Oops! You got me there! I have made some edits to the page as a general idea of what I mean. Moves such as a seperate Stokes disambig page and not listing every person with the name Sstoke are ways of avoiding a cluttered disambig page. Alan Liefting 8 July 2005 02:50 (UTC)

I can't see any consensus for this move, so the result is not moved. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)