Talk:Groove

Should there be mutual links from the Groove and Grove disambiguation pages?
There is an ongoing dispute between User:TheTruthiness and User:Dtgriscom about having a link from the Groove disambiguation page to the Grove disambiguation page, and vice-verse, and I would like help resolving this dispute.

On July 23 '12 I came across a link to the Grove disambiguation article in the Groove disambiguation article, saw it as a clear mistake, and deleted it. On this past May 17 TheTruthiness (who had originally inserted the link) reverted my edit without comment. On May 20 I posted to his talk page asking for clarification, but never received a response. Three days later I removed both links, notifying him on his talk page. He then again reverted my links, citing "as per MOS:DAB for Misspellings" in the edits.

I then posted in the Teahouse, asking for advice on how to avoid an edit war, and User:King_jakob_c_2 suggested that if the conflict continued I should seek a third opinion, and if that didn't work mediation. So, I once again consulted the first sentence in MOS:DAB ("Common misspellings should be listed only if there is a genuine risk of confusion or misspelling") and concluded that there is little chance that the two terms will be confused; if they are likely to be confused, then so are Grave, Grieve, Groan, Grub, Grope, Louvre, and several dozen other words. I thus removed the links again; he reverted my edits yet again, adding a comment to my talk page.

If an edit war hasn't yet started, my re-reverting these edits would clearly start it. I'm about to post in the Third Opinion page asking for whether Groove and Grove are truly "common misspellings" where "there is a genuine risk of confusion or misspelling." -- Dan Griscom (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a sad fact, but I can truly see that as a common misspelling. Not because people don't know the difference between grove and groove (well, some are that bad at spelling), but mostly because auto-correct and fat fingering small keyboards on mobile devices and whatnot.  It really doesn't hurt anything to have the links connecting the two in my opinion.  I hope this helps. That being said, the method of communicating  employs could probably use some improvement.  Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks: I'll respect your opinions (both of them). -- Dan Griscom (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)