Talk:Hama (disambiguation)

Link to Hama massacre
Shouldn't there be a metion and a link to Hama massacre? 75.85.81.0 (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Big mess instead of "disambiguation".
Hama and Hamat (the final "t" doesn't change the meaning), with various spellings, are a Semitic place name. That's by far the most common occurrence of the name, and not only among WP articles. Therefore, by any logic, this should be ONE CATEGORY, distinct from the others. There are PLENTY of such Hamas and Hamats. Mixing those place names UNDER THE SAME TOP HEADING with Japanese models, Tolkien characters and human anti-mouse antibodies, is plain ridiculous (which may be fun), and totally goes against the main purpose of any work of reference: to be helpful to the puzzled user (which is not funny at all).

I have reached this page and related ones as a user, not as an editor, looking for clarification, needed for my study and work. It took me ages to understand the basic facts - etymology, evolution of the name, exceptions where the name has a different origin (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmaus#Emmaus.2FColonia.2FMotza.2FAmmassa.2FAmmaous.2FBeit_Mizzeh). Once I did understand it, I tried to systematise the disambiguation page and I still very much intend to finish the job, both for Hama as well as for Hamat(h). I am a communication professional with a long list of published contributions and know how to present information in a logical and systematic way, easy to comprehend and easy to look up.

There is one other WP editor, Bkonrad, who recently looked up a whole number of disambiguation pages I had worked on, and has reverted them all at the same time. (S)he might well be specialised or otherwise interested in one or the other of the topics involved, but certainly not in all, and this modus operandi looks very much like stalking and posturing. The arguments used by Bkonrad are always a collection of WP guidelines, and nothing else. (S)he is bombarding me with WP lingo, which looks like Chinese to me (I'm not ashamed at all not to have taken my PhD in WP studies, nor do I thing it is required once certain standards are upheld). I hold against this "project" of Bkonrad's that, first, logic is sometimes quite recognisably objective in nature, and where interpretable guidelines take precedence over logic, we're in deep... trouble (to push it to the extreme, see []). Second, if I understood it right, WP guidelines are not written in stone, but are modified according to actually occurring problems. In other words, are subject to - logic. I'll leave it at this. Actually not, a last word: I'm not vandalising the page, introducing unheard-of amendments, so this edit-warring attitude of Bkonrad, who "goes after me" in areas very much my domain of interest and hardly Bkonrad's, is ... not very laudable, nor mature or ethical towards the WIKIPEDIA USER, who should be our only concern.

I have no experience in convoking arbitration authorities, but I will if need be. I do still hope though that logic, maturity and common-sense will prevail without ridiculous, endless schoolyard-type confrontation.Arminden (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden
 * The criteria for inclusion on a disambiguation page is rather simple. There has to be an existing Wikipedia article that supports the ambiguous usage. In most cases, this would be the title itself. In other cases, the ambiguity may be described in the text of the article. Suggest reading up on the guidelines for WP:disambiguation and formatting disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 21:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)