Talk:Amadeus

Primary topic style
Primarily Amadeus is a name. That is a fact. Maybe enwiki uses the article name primarily for the play, but it does not mean, it is not a name, or that should affect the disambiguation page. Does a style change facts? Am I wrong? JSoos (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyhow, why not the film is primary (putting it in italic is showing some also think like that). Was there any discussion about it? Also I do not find guidelines saying if there is a primary usage, then the disambiguation page MUST began with that article. JSoos (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, for disambiguation pages, the primary topic is the article whose name has no disambiguating term; see MOS:DABPRIMARY.


 * In this case, that's the article for the stage play. Its name is italicized not because it is primary, but because Wikipedia style is to italicize the names of long works, such as books, movies, or stage plays.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Plaese quote! MOS:DABPAGES says: "It is recommended that the link back to the primary topic appear at the top, in a brief explanatory sentence." (bolded by me)
 * Amadeus (film) was italicized not the play JSoos (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Moreover what you are saying is not true: "Introductory line: The term being disambiguated should be in bold (not italics). It should begin a sentence fragment ending with a colon, introducing a bulleted list" (MOS:DABPAGES) JSoos (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Amadeus listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Amadeus. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Cnilep (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)