Talk:Eerie, Indiana/Archive 1

This archive page covers approximately the dates between August 2004 and January 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Eerie, Indiana/Archive02. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. -- Ipstenu ( talk | contribs ) 16:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Although there is no other article or subject about "Eerie, Indiana", this fictional city should remain disambiguated, to prevent confusion. -- Netoholic @ 17:34, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Rubbish Mintguy (T)
 * Would you prefer someone include this on a "List of cities in Indiana" or similar? This city is fictional, and so should be plainly apparent. -- Netoholic @ 19:02, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation should not be used unless is it absolutely required. With respect to ficticious places there are many similar examples, such as Avonlea, Prince Edward Island, Castle Rock, Maine, Derry, Maine, Little Whinging, Maycomb, Alabama Middlemarch, Innsmouth, Massachusetts, Pine Cove, California, Winesburg, Ohio, Gormenghast etc. etc.. Mintguy (T) 19:31, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Your comparison is false. In the first place, "Eerie, Indiana" is a title of the work, not just a fictional city; and second, Those examples you gave should probably be redirects to the works that reference them - there is no value in them being separate stubs. Looks like I have some clean-up to do on List of fictional cities. The first target will be ones which are formatted like real U.S. cities as this one is. -- Netoholic @ 21:52, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Winesburg, Ohio, Middlemarch, and Gormenghast are all titles of works, there are others. THe comparison is sound for these and again there is no need to disambiguate unneccesarily when there is no conflict with another article. Mintguy (T)

Ok. Firstly, do not delete the comments of others in talk pages (as in this edit). Not only is this rude, it is against normal proceedures. Marking this edit as a minor compounds the issue. Secondly Disambiguation clearly states -
 * Disambiguation pages serve a single purpose: To let the reader choose between different pages that might reside under the same title. Disambiguation pages serve a single purpose: To let the reader choose between different pages that might reside under the same title. Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion.


 * The fact the Eerie, Indiana has a comma in it is entirely irrelevant. Mintguy (T)


 * The "risk of confusion" is exactly why fictional place names that would normally follow the U.S. city naming convention of "City, State" should be disambiguated. Yes, even if nothing else shares that name. This is a strange case that only applies to U.S. cities, but it makes a tremendous amount of sense. We do not want Eerie, Indiana to appear on a list of real cities. -- Netoholic @ 18:09, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * What you think is sense, or what I think is sense, is irrelevant. The convention is that places are not disambiguated unecessarily. It is only because of the ongoing dispute elsewhere that I have not already moved Eerie, Indiana back to this page, there are several admins who would have. Perhaps you would like to call in another opinion. Mintguy (T) 21:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * As usual Netoholic's unilateral changes are inappropriate. Eventually we're going to have to move back tons of things that he's moved without consensus.  This is one of them.  I would have moved it back already if it weren't for the discussion on this talk page.  RickK 21:36, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Before anyone bugs me about the above conversation, I wasn't the one that moved it in the first place. Nowadays, I see both sides of it, and lean slightly more towards placing it at Eerie, Indiana only because this is a place name and the title. I still don't know how to resolve the fact that doing that may cause confusion. -- Netoholic @ 17:34, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)


 * If someone misunderstands even when the location is placed on a list of fictional towns and cities, then it is their own fault, since nothing more can realistically be done than to state it that plainly. --Chr.K. 09:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Eerie, Indiana (TV series) &rarr; Eerie, Indiana

 * The disambiguation is unnecessary because there isn't a real place called Eerie, Indiana. Jooler 03:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- Netoholic @ 05:08, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
 * Support not sure what Epitome's motivation was for moving it, but I think there's no real question here. There's no other "Eerie, Indiana" so the "(TV series)" isn't necessary and neither is the redirect. Cburnett 05:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The early discussion was regarding whether it was good practice to name articles about fictional cities in the same pattern we use naming U.S. cities. Eerie, Indiana is a one-off, since it is a fictional city and the title of the series. Nowadays, barring them being a title like this one, fictional city articles are named by city only, even if they are said to be in a particular state. -- Netoholic @ 16:05, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
 * Support, naturally. ADH (t&m) 05:59, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously. Neutralitytalk 21:35, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, someotheradverbially. &mdash; Ford 19:20, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)