Talk:Tuck (surname)

Comment

This title would apply to an article about the surname. People who might be sought by that surname as a title (e.g., hoping for a Rdr) belong on the Dab page, Tuck, for those users' convenience. Thus none of the removed former content of Tuck (surname) was encyclopedically relevant to the surname. The name per se is not worth an article. I've done all the work for a merge, except the actual history merge, which i will do in a few days in the absence of cogent objections, or a stub that (unlike mine) is worth keeping.
--Jerzy•t 16:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I'm sure we should be getting smarter about surnames, specifically lists of surnames. These will grow in proportion to the biography articles, which are now well into six figures. 'Getting smart', as I see it, means freeing the listing by surnames from miscellaneous dab clutter. We should move forward on this, towards standardising a new format for surname lists. The old manual on dab pages is obsolescent, in my view. And there are thousands of surnames: I really don't want to have to argue the case, each time, for a basically harmless operation of creating as dedicated page. Charles Matthews 14:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ The "old" Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) had its first birthday yesterday, so i am at a loss to see what has changed in that time that could justify the label "obsolescent": it sounds like you disagree with it and don't want to bother making a case for your view on its talk page!

_ _ I don't know from "basic", but your approach makes the surnames one click (or 10 keystrokes) less available to those seeking them, and not significantly less hidden in clutter. (Your effort would have been better spent getting rid of the dict-defs, in this case.) I call that harmful enuf to deserve attention.

_ _ However, transclusion may offer the benefits you seek without the harm. As a pilot project, i'm modifying the Dab, & creating Tuck (surname disambiguation) and a template; i hope you'll comment either here or on the MoS page's talk page.
--Jerzy•t 20:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I contributed on the manual talk page a couple of days ago, didn't get much good sense, and have been archived already. The MOS on this is too fussy. It is also not designed for doing the industrial quantities that are actually needed to improve the navigation significantly. We have something like the telephone directory of a major city to compile by now; people don't seem to be taking on board quite how much is needed. Charles Matthews 21:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]