Talk:Duncan Campbell

Manual of Style
I've reverted the page back to what it was prior to the last three changes - as it was it complied with WP:MOSDAB and I don't see the need for the changes made. People should be able to find their Duncan quickly. If there is aproblem with which one should be at Duncan Campbell, that's a different issue. John (Jwy) 15:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, but why is "producer" (whatever that is) better than "TV producer" (which means something)? Harumphy 15:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * @ Harumphy, thx for the correction, I guess I'm still bemused that there are 2 Brit Duncan Campbell reporters...


 * @ John - "For every style suggestion above, there's some page which has a good reason to do something else. These guidelines are intended for consistency, but usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason." I had a good reason, the focus on any given instance of a common name is silly, and the random and frequently disordered disambig. lists are rarely immediately helpful.  I understand you may not see the need for the change yourself, but was there any particular reason for the revert?
 * Hakluyt bean 16:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like to think I am not generally pedantic about the guidelines, but there has been quite a bit of thought put into them. My reversion didn't mean I disapprove of all the changes, but it seemed TV producer to producer didn't seem to be that critical, so I (lazily) didn't update the reversion to include it - no argument with that changing back from here.  The reversion was, as you say, because I didn't see need for it. . . and there was no explanation why you thought your changes were necessary.  The three readons that I objected to the changes were:  1) the target article (Duncan Campbell) was moved from a "special" first sentence.  Under most conditions this will NOT be the article people are looking for, because if they enter Duncan Cambell, they will go to that article and not come to the dab page.  Isolating it at the top makes it easier to scan the items that are likely to be the target people want.  2) the extra blue links.  These are distracting when one is trying to find an ambigiuous item.  These links will likely be available in the lead of the target article they select/are looking for.  And 3) consistency.  The more familiar the reader is with the layout, the faster they can find what they are looking for.
 * As for sorting of amgibuous names like this page, I can see there being some issues. But with five (or four, if we use the special sentence), it doesn't seem like breaking it into parts will help much.  In some cases, there are clearly more prominent people in the list and these should be near the top.  But in a case like this, I can see other sorting being useful (if the list is long).  My preference here would be to get birth dates for the living Duncans and simply sort the four by birthdate.
 * So there are my particular reasons. Make sense?  i mainly wanted to make sure the issues were out there. John (Jwy) 18:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As wikipedia is not Britannica, the "special" first sentence is purely arbitrary is it not, just being the first article created. I'm not sure I understand your point here, is it that the automatic link is not likely to be the one people are interested in, and this is why it's the default page?  So it's a case of sending people to the less popular article so that they can better ignore it when they click through to the disambig?


 * Anyway, I don't have a special interest in "Duncan Campbell" btw except that when I dropped the name in as an external reference link I found on checking that it was pointing to some deceased Scottish nobleman, which was a bit of a surprise. Personally, I'd have rather gone straight to the disambig (where I wound up anyway) and refined my link from there.  I'd also have thought living people/historical people would be a useful distinction in helping you find who you want.  It's also quite easy to do.  Guidelines arise from practice do they not? Or is it committee?  :)  I note you suggest your own preference, which is cool.  We clearly differ on how Duncan Campbell should be presented.  As I say it wasn't my focus to begin with so it's not on my watchlist now.  I appreciate you taking the time to explain. Hakluyt bean 21:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)