Talk:Itti-Marduk-balatu

RE: Cleanup per WP:MOSDAB
Just a few concerns really:


 * All items need an associated blue link, ie the item must be mentioned in an article. It should be removed per WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
 * Red links are allowed and should be used if you believe an article can be written for the subject that meets inclusion guidelines. Also consider creating redirects if the topic is never likely to warrant its own article, but is mentioned in some detail (preferably in its own section) at another page.
 * Do not pipe items, per WP:PIPING. This makes it easier to tell the articles apart.
 * Ordering per WP:MOSDAB. The sections are rather awkward, and wouldn't really assist someone finding the target. I would suggest removing them. In terms of ordering, it might be best to order by importance: so subject with an article, subjects without an article but with a red link, (redirects), subjects where no article will be written. Within these categories you might want to order by date or name.
 * Minor but remove the excess spacing between lines.

How about we check them off when they are complete? Feel free to ask if there are any questions or if something seems amiss. France 3470  ( talk ) 17:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Moved from User talk:France3470:


 * 1.	All items need an associated blue link. Your colleague, user: Boleyn, clearly objects to links that are not directly named for the subject of the disambiguation page, so this is clearly not going to be possible unless you can agree a compromise with your colleague.
 * 2.	I have 3 Itti-Marduk-balāṭu articles under preparation, so I just left the one red link for the next one to be posted in a couple of weeks. There are actually several more Itti-Marduk-balāṭu’s, but these others are not significant historical figures. All 12 in this page should feature in an article or as a subsection of an article eventually.
 * 3.	WP:PIPING: why did you remove all the orthographic symbols from “balāṭu”? I was “piping” so the link would not use the orthographic symbols but they would still display on screen. Are you sure that this is what is intended by this policy? Would this work: Itti-Marduk-balāṭu (king)?
 * 4.	The entries are already in chronological order, as indicated in the note (<-- in chronological order -->). It isn’t possible to order them in a sequence of importance because Itti-Marduk-balāṭu numbers 1, 3, 6 and 10 are equally important. I had to create the disambiguation page before I created the first article, for Itti-Marduk-balāṭu (king), to stop somebody else renaming Itti-Marduk-balāṭu (king) to Itti-Marduk-balāṭu, in ignorance of the others. The two sections are simply, “known period” and “uncertain date.” How can that be any simpler?
 * 5.	OK.BigEars42 (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * France 3470  ( talk ) 19:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay I've asked for some input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation‎ because I keep muddling my explanations tonight, likely due to lack of sleep. In the meantime I'm going to ponder this for bit. Perhaps having a look at Disambiguation dos and don'ts might bring more clarity. France 3470   ( talk ) 20:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)