Talk:Cryan

Disambiguation content on anthroponymy pages
, I have nothing against the merging of the content of the disambiguation page, as after all the current article (in its present state) is for all practical purposes a disambiguation page itself and readers might as well be spared the extra click. However, I don't know if this is generally a good idea and I'm welcoming this opportunity for a discussion. Normally, I'd expect disambiguation content (including the not-to-be-confused-with kind of links) to go in a hatnote at the top of the page. Finding them in the "see also" section is a bit of a surprise – as normally this section is for links to articles related by topic rather than ones similar in title. This is just a question, I'm not convinced I know the answer. What is best for the readers? Uanfala (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've run across these kind of links in the 'see also' for surname pages enough, although I can't think of one off the top of my head. I think it comes down to the fact that anthroponymy indexes have similar functions to disambiguation pages. That's probably the best way to answer the "best for our readers" question. For example, if an average reader comes across Cryan, they're not going to know the difference between a dab and an index, all they see (and care about) is a bunch of links. They are going to skim through it, look for what they want, and move on. Adding more links to the see also would be helpful in this regard and saves them a click if they can't find what they're looking for right away. Now, the exception would be if the surname page functions more like an article instead of a disambiguation. If someone is reading paragraphs about the history and etymology of a surname, they would probably be surprised to find these kind of links in the see also. In that case, it'd be best to include that in a hatnote or separate dab page. Does that make sense? -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Uanfala is right. User:Tavix I've merged the dab with another term and restored the dab. If you know any other SIAs with disambiguation in their See also section please just say, and I'll take a look, regards Widefox ; talk 17:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing with you, just getting philosophical on the differences between dabs and SIAs. I just cleaned up the resulting dab slightly. I think this is as good as it's going to get, yes? -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's quite clear-cut really, as per dabconcept that dab items get split off to a dab (or hatnote) but never a See also. Articles and lists have dab items in hatnotes. Mixing/conflating any of these separate things is easy enough to do but isn't useful. Now, there is overlap between dabs and SIAs, and dabs and broadconcepts and grey areas of what to include especially regarding WP:RELATED. Widefox ; talk 17:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)