Talk:March
From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference
[edit] March
There's a conflict between March (month) and March (the Wrath of Kahn character), so one will need to be named differently. I'm thinking that the month of March should get the unqualified article name, since it's the most common usage (and since the character March was a minor one). If this is agreed on, what should we rename the existing March article (on the character) to? Input please... -- Renegade54 20:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Considering March, the character, has been in existance for over a year now, that would seem to indicate to me that his entry is of more interest/common on this site than the month of a year, which is just now becoming something of interest this far into the game. --Alan del Beccio 00:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I seem to remember one or more past discussions on diambiguation that centered on an article with the most common usage being assigned the unqualified title, and the other(s) being assigned a qualified one. I could be wrong, but all I did here was ask for a consensus. Just because March was created over a year ago doesn't mean that it's of most interest to everyone, only to the creator, which in this case, just happens to be you, Alan. I don't really care what the heck they're named, as long as they make sense... I was just looking for feedback, and, like I said, a consensus.
Tell me something, though... do you have to work hard at annoying people, or is it simply a gift? -- Renegade54 05:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hey! No personal attacks please. That was uncalled for, since he did not address you, just maybe the article in question. March the man was mentioned and seen only once, I gather. A March (disambiguation) page would be good because of "Wedding March," Barbara March, etc. The month March was mentioned at least twice on ENT (in 2152 and 2153) and at least once on VOY (in regards to Chakotay).--Tim Thomason 10:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I really hate to repeat myself again and again and again... but apparently, that's necessary from time to time. Here it goes: A disambiguation page is normally created to "catch" all links to one title that has several meanings. To be able to do so, the disambiguation page should be located at that title and not some other title such as "Title (disambiguation)" where it can only be found via yet another additional link on one of the pages - that should only be used in specific cases where one meaning is much more common than the other. One of you thinking that it is doesn't automatically make one meaning the preferred one (and that goes both ways), so we should start with the rule, not the exception. -- Cid Highwind 12:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- I know, that's exactly what I meant, and just did almost an hour ago.--Tim Thomason 12:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I really hate to repeat myself again and again and again... but apparently, that's necessary from time to time. Here it goes: A disambiguation page is normally created to "catch" all links to one title that has several meanings. To be able to do so, the disambiguation page should be located at that title and not some other title such as "Title (disambiguation)" where it can only be found via yet another additional link on one of the pages - that should only be used in specific cases where one meaning is much more common than the other. One of you thinking that it is doesn't automatically make one meaning the preferred one (and that goes both ways), so we should start with the rule, not the exception. -- Cid Highwind 12:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to all... it was late, and I was grouchy.. No excuse, I know... just an explaination. I do realize that one of us thinking that doesn't automatially make one meaning the preferred one (going both ways), which is why I asked the community for discussion and consensus and didn't just change things. I appreciate the feedback. :) -- Renegade54 13:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
