Talk:Elizabeth Wood (housing director)

Link
I don't know how to make this new article link up with her entry I made on the disambiguation page. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idscnyco (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just use the same name. I think it has been fixed now. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
moved to Elizabeth Wood (executive) Parsecboy : Chat  03:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Are you saying this should be the primary name for Elizabeth Wood, and that Elizabeth Wood be moved to Elizabeth Wood (disambiguation)? 199.125.109.126 (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose instead rename to Elizabeth Wood (Chicago) 76.66.201.179 (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not the primary sense of this name, the DAB should stay where it is. However I agree that the current disambiguator should be changed. Not sure what too. Relisting for further discussion. Andrewa (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Leave everything the way it currently is. This is, in my option, the correct setup. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

From WP:RM
 * Now added to disambiguation page. The article shouldn't be moved to Elizabeth Wood however - there are 3 of this name, and your one is an orphaned page, whereas the other two have a number of links. Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposals
What should the disambiguator be? I'm not happy with (CHA) but not sure what to suggest as a better one. Andrewa (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no need for a qualifier at all. The other two articles are Elizabeth Wyn Wood and Beth Wood so all three similar-but-not-the-same names can co-exist without qualifiers. Primary use is not an issue because, according to the articles and all their references, it appears that Elizabeth Wyn Wood is always referred to by her full name and there is no evidence that Beth Wood's name even is "Elizabeth"; her biography says "Beth Ann Wood was born..." and elsewhere she is always Beth Wood. The three articles could not have the same titles, which is when disambiguation of titles is necessary. Of course, to avoid reader confusion, a hatnote on Elizabeth Wood is advisable, either directly to one or both other names or to an Elizabeth Wood (disambiguation). (If you absolutely positively must have a qualifier, "(housing planner)" or "(housing administrator)" would do.) Station1 (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree that there's no need to disambiguate. naming conventions reads in part titles should be brief without being ambiguous. Elizabeth wood is ambiguous, in that someone looking for an article on a person about whom they may know little other than that their name is Beth Wood or Elizabeth Wyn Wood is likely to look under Elizabeth Wood. disambiguation reads in part When an article title could refer to several things...; This is exactly the case here, Elizabeth Wood could refer to any of these three persons. It's not the preferred title for two of the articles, and not even an acceptable one for Beth Wood, but it could refer to her on occasions. All the above shows is that these occasions are rare.


 * Agree that (housing planner) and (housing administrator) are good candidates. Can we do better? Andrewa (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I moved it to Elizabeth Wood (executive) before I read the discussion here. Hope that works for everyone. – ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RM: 199.125.109.124 (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This doesn't need a move, it needs a proper disambiguation title. It is already listed on the disam page. – ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Now moved to Elizabeth Wood (executive) and disam page corrected. – ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Recap
Preemptively moved Elizabeth Wood (CHA)->Elizabeth Wood (executive).

It's still listed at WP:RM where I relisted it to allow more discussion, and specifically in the hope we'd find a better disambiguator.

I think (executive) is acceptable. Is there any opposition to leaving the article there? I suggest either way, we let it go for the five days as relisted, and hopefully by that time we'll have consensus on a final name. Andrewa (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)