Talk:Lincoln/Archive 2

Move
This is ridiculous. I'd say that probably about 90% of people searching "Lincoln" are looking for Abraham Lincoln. "Lincoln" should redirect there. Since when does the capital of Nebraska take prevalance over our 16th president!?!?!? If not a move, I suggest we at least put him at the top of the list.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

'Our 16th president'? You do understand that this would apply to less than 3% of the world's population don't you? I think you may be making the usual mistake that Wikipedia specifically cautions against. This is a global encyclopedia and the 16th president of one country is of no more significance than the 16th president of any other. You really need to understand that for 97% of the world's population the word 'Lincoln' is not automatically associated with a dead foreign politician.

Worldtraveller 6th September 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.139.98 (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I agree with Sith. Even though the United States is only 3% of the world's population, it is the largest English-speaking country in the world (India's primary language is Hindu).  This is the English wikipedia, after all.  Alsop remember that Lincoln is one of the core biographies in English wikipedia and on meta (that's the true world site, not this) Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I will bother to respond to anyone who thinks that 'Hindu' is a language. However for other people reading this dialogue I hope that they will see the problem inherent in allowing people with no education to edit an encyclopedia.

Worldtraveller 6th September 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.139.98 (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Correction...make that Hindi, a language that is the first language of half a billion people. Only off by one typewriter key.  Honestly, Trav, I have two years of college under my belt and I don't appreciate being called uneducated.  Remember WP:NPA.  If you don't understand why Abe Lincoln's in the header, ask this guy Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * His name is at the top of the list as we put people before places here though I am not sure that is right, but certainly the claim that 90% of people are looking for the US President sounds like original research and also just plain wrong. When you say our president do remember this is an international and not an American project so I would strongly oppose a redirect to the famous person. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What about Lincoln, Lincolnshire? I think you will find it is one of the oldest uses of the name, long before the USA was even created, let alone a 16th President elected. --BSTemple (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As a Brit I certainly associate the name with the UK town but I do think its fine to have Lincoln pointing to the disamb page. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with SqueakBox. My point was that if there is ever a change away from the disamb page, then by right it will be to the Lincoln, Lincolnshire. All the other names of Lincoln stem from this. --BSTemple (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A 100k town in England? Please. President Lincoln is far more notable than a small town. Even from an International scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.153.171 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 19 April 2009
 * Although President Lincoln is more notable than a small town, people searching for him will probably type President Lincoln or Abraham Lincoln. If you were looking for a place called Lincoln, you have no other choice but to type Lincoln. I think it's best to keep this a disambig page. RupertMillard (Talk) 10:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The surname Lincoln comes from Lincoln in Lincolnshire. No Lincoln in Lincolnshire, then no Lincoln (as a surname) for president. And it is not a town; it is a city with a very famous Cathedral that is an impressive landmark and was a welcome sight for Bomber crews returning from missions, fighting for Freedom in World War Two. --BSTemple (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I can understand not having the redirect to Abraham Lincoln, but as I read the consensus (especially with my comments added to one side), Abraham Lincoln is more important than Lincoln, England, and therefore should get the mention in the header. Let's look at this way...Abraham Lincoln is one of the 100 most important people in the history of the world (hence his inclusion in Core Biographies), but Lincoln, England is not one of the world's 100 most important cities.  Not even close.  Sorry, Temple, but I am afraid you are alone in your so-called "consensus" to keep Lincoln out of the header Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC).


 * I don't agree with Anglo-centric view of the town or the US-centric view of the president. The president's name is "Abraham Lincoln" anyway, not just Lincoln. There is no unequivocal view about the primary topic and I think the page should revert to the last version by Ken Gallager. Nurg (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe no unequivocal view on this talk page, but in the general community, it's pretty clear that consensus is Abraham Lincoln. I would also note that other famous people who also have cities with the same name have the person named in the header.  For example, on the Washington, disambiguation page, it says at the top, "for usees of George Washington, go here".  I believe Lincoln in the header is a nice compromise between S8333631's view of Lincoln redirecting to Abraham Lincoln and Nurg and Temple's view of barely mentioning Abraham Lincoln at all.  Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The name Lincoln
Though this is a disambiguation page, I feel that due to the unique nature of the word Lincoln and where it actually stems from, warrants a mention in some form on this page.

Nurg does not agree and does, rightly, point to MOS:DAB. But I also point to MOS:DAB. My point is that the Wikipedia is meant to provide information and without Lincoln, Lincolnshire, none of the other names would exist, this should be made clear to the reader.

So there are 3 suggestions


 * 1) Place at the beginning - Lincoln is a contraction of the Latin Lindum Colonia, which was the name of a colony for veteran soldiers of the Roman Empire that settled in what is now Lincoln, Lincolnshire, England.
 * 2) Place at the section - Lincoln, Lincolnshire, England, the county town of Lincolnshire and originator of the name Lincoln
 * 3) As Nurg says and leave it out altogether, which I personally feel is lacking of true information of an encyclopaedia.

Suggestions from other Editors on this matter would be appreciated, as this is the true sprit of the Wikipedia.--BSTemple (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It can include a Lincoln, England reference in the header so long as it includes an Abraham Lincoln reference. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy medium
Judging from the last few topics, there are some who want this page just to redirect to Abraham Lincoln and some want it to focus more on Lincoln, England than the President. There is no kind of consensus, but there is a happy medium--mentioning Abe Lincoln at the top, then Lincoln, England, and then other stuff. Challenges to this probably should be reverted unless a new consensus is reached. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There is/(used to be) a way to find out which pages get the most hits & then the order can be ranked: Abraham Lincoln; Lincoln automobile; Lincoln, Nebraska; Lincoln, England. Also: about 600 articles link to the city, about 4000 to Abe --JimWae (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln got over 300,000 hits in July --JimWae (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln (automobile) got over 16,000 --JimWae (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I did numbers on your site for Lincolnshire (15K) and Lincoln, NE (18K). Look, Jimmy...I agree with you that Abe should be the primary thrust of this disam, if not the redirect, just by a core-bio and meta-1000 argument.  Unfortunately, there are a few vocal members of the Lincolnshire project who want to downplay Abe in favor of Lincolnshire.  My happy medium is |this this edit, before WPLin added the stuff in the lead about Lincoln, England.  I think your version works fine, and I'll make sure it's the one used.  Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone seriously needs to get to grips with the fact this isn't an American site! The disambiguation page is perfectly fine as it is. Jeni ( talk ) 01:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Revert. Didn't you read why Jim and I did what we did?  Abraham Lincoln needs to have a link in the lead...he is a core biography and gets over a quarter-million hits a month.  Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't an American site. That doesn't mean, however, that the primary topic of a word might be an article about something American. See Nixon, Boston. Compare: Wikipedia isn't a UK site. That doesn't mean, however, that the primary topic of a word might be an article about something in the UK. See Churchill, London. Jeni, are you advocating that London (disambiguation) be moved to London, or that Churchill (disambiguation) be moved to Churchill? The primary topic is the primary topic, whether the article is about something American, British, Canadian, Antipodean, South African, Indian, global, or extraterrestrial. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I’m afraid the problem is that some want it only an American focus and my edits were to counter balance a very pro American one. The best part is that Lincoln, Lincolnshire is the origin of the word Lincoln and is far, far older than America. Some Americans cannot get their head around the fact that other people around the world do not think like they do.--BSTemple (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Temple, I and others favor primacy of Abraham Lincoln not because he's American, but because he is more world-renowned, and therefore has lots lots more hits than Lincoln, Lincolnshire. Also, there is a pro-British bias by some editors, as well as a pro-American one Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes agreed, I’m not disputing that, but your edits were constantly that Lincoln refers to Abraham Lincoln and you constantly removed edits by other editors that it is only to Americans that this may be so. In the UK if you said just Lincoln then everyone would assume the City of Lincoln. The same is true for Europe.--BSTemple (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I usually said "Lincoln often refers to Abe", while keeping everything else (including your favorite Lincoln, Lincolnshire) in the body. And the reason I reverted the edits that said "it's only in the United States that Lincoln refers to Abraham Lincoln" is because he happens to be one of the most well-known Americans outside of the United States.  Also, I reverted one guy's edits because they were poorly punctuated.  Also, remember that there are people on this page who are more Anglocentric than I or anyone else is America-centric Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Attempts at a consensus
Right, since there is currently no consensus for a change, its time to make us some consensus! :)

The way I see this, there are a number of options;
 * Option 1 - The status quo, the way the article currently is, and was before this dispute started. permalink
 * Option 2 - The lead of the disambiguation page should read like "In the United Kingdom and the European Union, Lincoln is used to refer to City of Lincoln. In the United States, Lincoln often refers to Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States. It also may refer to:"
 * Option 3 - The lead of the disambiguation page should read like "In the United States and many other parts of the world, Lincoln often refers to Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States. Particularly in the United Kingdom, Lincoln is also used to refer to City of Lincoln. It also may refer to:"

For what its worth, my opinion on this is that it should stay with option 1, the status quo. It has never been a problem before, it is most likely to please all sides by offering no bias towards any particular article, anglo or american centric. Jeni ( talk ) 03:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I have informed WikiProject England of this discussion, as I'm not familiar with US WikiProjects, I shall leave it to someone else to inform one of them. That should encourage editors from both sides of the debate so we can generate a proper consensus. Jeni  ( talk ) 03:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For starters, there's an Option 4 that has been floated above:
 * Option 4: Lincoln redirects to Abe Lincoln

Also note that Louie just reverted to #3 (AKA the one I favor), based on the comments above. I vote for Option 3, because it's a good compromise between Options 1 & 4, and, going back to the comments in the previous section, it mentions the article with Lincoln in the title and the most hits (Abraham Lincoln) first. Abraham Lincoln just has way way way more hits than anything else Lincoln (at least 10x more). If that's America-centric, so be it. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, a few observations: (1) In general, the page should stay the way it is, i.e. it should be a disambiguation page, not a redirect. (2) Most everything American with "Lincoln" in the title was named in reference to Abe Lincoln. (3) Presumably the British and possibly the Canadian cities were not named for Abe Lincoln. Items (2) and (3) pose a dilemma for the construction of this page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * JimWae's and my rationale for Option 3 is that Lincoln is a core biography and gets about 10,000 hits a day, about what most of the other articles get in the average month. By the way, I mentioned this on WikiProject Biography and WikiProject US Presidents. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a good time to point out that your notification on the Biography WP wasn't exactly neutrally worded? It falls under the bad form of canvassing. If you are going to inform other projects then I suggest you keep the wording neutral. I feel you should reword your notification, otherwise I feel that is a matter I will need to take further again. Jeni  ( talk ) 03:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Notifying an English site isn't exactly neutral either. If you don't like my wording, comment on it or take me to ANI.  Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to read WP:CANVASS on what is and what isn't acceptable. Jeni  ( talk ) 03:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like Jefferson would be a good model for this page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's basically #3, what I've been suggesting all along —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebackpack89 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Jefferson is almost entirely exclusive to US related articles, may not be an appropriate comparison. Jeni  ( talk ) 03:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would there be an issue about putting the most common references in the lead, as with the Jefferson article? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because that leads to disagreements over which should go first, hence in my opinion it is best left as a "standard" disambig page, then there are no disagreements, no bickering. Jeni  ( talk ) 03:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But Jeni, Abraham Lincoln has 10-15 times as many hits as anything else. Not even close.  Also, in your version he's buried in a table halfway down the page.  Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No one's disputing that Abraham Lincoln gets a lot of views, but how many come from this disambiguation page? I don't expect anything more than conjecture, but considering there's a decent size settlement in both the US and UK, I'd suggest that most people know that Lincoln can apply to things other than the ex-president and that if they were searching for his article they would search for "Abraham Lincoln". Nev1 (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Option 1 although Abraham Lincoln is a person for whom the use of the name Lincoln is notable his is not the sole notable use of the word.Simonm223 (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think some form of option 3 is appropriate. However, the devil is in the details of just how it is to be phrased. Complicating matters, if you look at What links here, you'll see that many of the links are for neither the president nor the place in England, but rather for either the automobile or the capital city of Nebraska. If the goal is to facilitate the most common mistaken links, these should also be mentioned in the top matter. Rather than any sort of paragraph of exposition, I suggest that the intro be something like:
 * Lincoln commonly refers to:
 * Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States
 * Lincoln, Lincolnshire, England
 * Lincoln (automobile), a luxury brand of the Ford Motor Company
 * Lincoln, Nebraska, the capital city
 * Lincoln may also refer to: (etc.)
 * Lincoln may also refer to: (etc.)

That my $.02. older ≠ wiser 03:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it. Those are surely the most common references. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also happily accept this. Go you! :) Jeni  ( talk ) 03:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bkonrad's proposal seems perfect to me. --JayHenry (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A lead with the most important stuff, in order of importance, first. That's what I've been saying for days. Agree Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With that new text as the lead, and the rest of the page as is, yes? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes This is a disambiguation page. Text doesn't matter, links matter.  Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * support Bkonrad's proposal; i gather his/her proposal entails keeping the current section headers, and i propose moving the "People" section to a higher position - "People" and "Places" should be the first and second sections (or the second and first.) Sssoul (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as a side note Given that its 4.57am in the UK, If we do seem to reach a quick consensus here, its worth giving at least another 15-20 hours before making any final changes based on comments here, to fairly allow UK users to comment! Jeni ( talk ) 03:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems fair enough. This article does not have a plane to catch. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone should explain why I am also not in bed? hehe Jeni  ( talk ) 04:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ma'am, please, keep your personal life to yourself. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Call it at midnight UTC, which is I believe 5 PM for us West Coasters Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

*it seems very strange that the current version doesn't list the 16th president in the "people" section; it also seems bizarre that the "people" section is so far down the page. if the president were the first entry under "people", and if "people" and "places" were the first and second sections, would that satisfy anybody in this dispute? Sssoul (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would go for Bkonrad's suggestion as a good compromise, save that I would place Lincoln, Lincolnshire at the top and honest Abe second, on the basis that the family name Lincoln ultimately derived from the city name. President Lincoln's first name is hardly unknown whereas 'Lincoln' is all the city has, it not being usual custom in Britain to refer to the county name. It would be excessively America-centric to allow a secondary name of even one of the greatest Americans to take precedence over the origin of the name. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I support Bkonrad's proposal. I agree with a lot of what has been said from 4:48am onwards, and would like to add that most people in the UK if searching for the article on the president would not simply type Lincoln as the English town is fairly well known here. I'd suggest the same is also true in America, as Lincoln, Nebraska, appears to be quite well known. Nev1 (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet more support for Bkonrad's proposal and, to avoid more debate over order, why not alphabetical which is nicely neutral and the way Bkonrad proposed_? Abtract (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd support Bkonrad's proposal, or a reduced version which only included the two main contenders (US president and UK town). (Coming from notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation) PamD (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Bkonrad's proposal, though I would probably favour having the locations above Abraham as were I looking for a place all I would be typing in would be Lincoln. Though, as long as the key ones are all at the top, who gives a toss? (And can someone take that God awful 'Lincoln Family Tree' thing out behind the stables and put it out of my ocular misery?) -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's why it's at the bottom? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Pile-on support for Bkonrad's proposal. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also support a move request to move this dab to Lincoln (disambiguation) so that Lincoln can target the primary topic, Abraham Lincoln, similar to the way Churchill targets Winston Churchill while the dab lives at Churchill (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt Abraham Lincoln is the primary use of the term 'Lincoln'. Heck, a search that returns all pages using "Abraham Lincoln" or "President Lincoln" amounts to ~8.5 million hits, while a search for Lincoln minus Abraham minus President returns 89 odd million and a search with UK appended returns just under 23 and a half million. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 12:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be right, but, heck, your counts aren't necessarily accurate.
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=%22president+lincoln%22+OR+%22abraham+lincoln%22 (11.1M when I run it)
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=lincoln+%28president+OR+abraham%29 (61.8M)
 * But even those miss some:
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=lincoln+-president+-abraham+emancipation (1.3M about Abraham that don't mention president or abraham)
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=lincoln+-president+-abraham+-emancipation+%22civil+war%22 (20.2M more with the "civil war" that don't mention president or abraham or emancipation)
 * similar pages about the Gettysburg Address or the Lincoln assassination, and many other topics as well. And Google hits are only on factor in determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC -- article traffic is another. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't setting out to establish a primary topic, merely to point out that hits for Lincoln in general are not insignificant, and even then we ignore that this is Lincoln not Abraham Lincoln. Making any last name redirect to one famous person with that name, especially when it is a name derived from a location, is just going to cause massive problems and infuriate a lot of users (and probably editors too). -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Churchill is derived from a location, isn't it? Patton, Nixon, Obama, etc., etc., are also last name redirects to one famous person. Primary topic is primary topic, and needn't cause massive problems or infuriate users. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where's your proof that Abraham Lincoln is the primary topic? Over other people named Abraham Lincoln, certainly, but over places as notable as Lincoln, Lincolnshire, and Lincoln, Nebraska? I'm sceptical because I have yet to see any evidence that most of the people who come to the page are expecting to see the article on the ex-president. Nev1 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't move the target. Other editors provided evidence (not proof), and I'm not claiming proof. I am, however, pointing out the it is perfectly possible for an article about one person to be the primary topic of a a word that happens to be a last name. The guidelines on primary topics to not prohibit their recognition for people, US-related articles, UK-related articles, music-related articles, software-company articles, etc., even though there have been complaints about each of those in the past. If there's a primary topic, then there's a primary topic, regardless of what the other attributes of the primary topic article are. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure Churchill is a place to surname instance (Though there are places called Churchill and I imagine several after the family, the Duke of Marlborough was a hero in his time). TBH I'm surprised that one is a direct link. I would have thought the first duke as notable as Winston. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 15:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lincoln should certainly be a disambiguation page. I agree with Bkonrad's proposal, but I think the city deserves just a couple more words of description.  Mr Stephen (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Someone looking for Lincoln, Lincolnshire would be able to identify it as the desired target without further description, wouldn't they? (For that matter, the much larger group looking for Abraham Lincoln would be able to identify it as the desired target without the description too.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're in the minority on that one. Consensus is to have the page set up as suggested by Bkonrad. Also, tinkering with the page while it's protected is not appropriate, especially as it appears to be leading towards your personal preferred version of the page, rather than the consensus version. Let's not start another ANI discussion, please. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I took care not to make any edits related to the arrangement of the "primaryish topics". Yes, let's avoid another ANI discussion, please. And what am I in the minority on again? The dab style guidelines specify using no description where none is needed, and using short descriptions where they are. I didn't see any other "majority" view on the description length here, so based on that we'd each be in a minority. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mis-read it somehow that you wanted plain-old "Lincoln" to take the reader directly to the Abe Lincoln article. I see you support the compromise. We're good. Or are we? See below. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support such a request made through the usual WP:RM process, but that's not this request, so I think we're good unless and until that request is made. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I support Bkonrad's proposal. I think it's a mistake to treat this page like an article and try to cover the history of the name and the relative importance of each entry. Dab pages aren't even allowed to have refs! Let's just stick to the basics and put on top what the majority of people are looking for. Abraham Lincoln gets 30x more hits than Lincoln, Lincolnshire. That's all there is to it and I would say the same thing if Lincoln, Lincolnshire was in the U.S. If you want to write an article on the history of the name Lincoln, go right ahead. Just please don't do it within this dab page. Now we need to somehow repair the deletions of the people just made by User:JHunterJ, which is pretty hard when the page is protected. I agree that the family tree needed to go, but it should be replaced by a list that conforms with the guideline. UncleDouggie (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the admin deleted some entries from the page, he should put them back. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was replaced by a list that confirmation with the guidelines. That list was split off to an anthroponymy article Lincoln (surname), which does indeed conform with the guidelines, and is preferred to keeping the surname-holder-list in the disambiguation page for lists that are not tiny. And now Lincoln (surname) (an article) can be expanded to include information on the history of the name Lincoln. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I see it. That wasn't at all obvious on such a long page and we should probably do something to highlight it better if we want to keep it this way. Which brings me to my real point: this change was made without an applicable edit summary or discussion while the page was protected. It seems that we don't count. UncleDouggie (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit summary was applicable and linked to the project whose guidelines were being implemented (and whose input was solicited, which is how I happened to be here) without doing anything to the primaryish topics under discussion. I have no idea what the "seems we don't count" refers to. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit summary didn't explain the split-off of all the people into Lincoln (surname) and this change was not discussed before or after the split was made. Several other major changes were also made. "seems we don't count" means that you placed yourself above regular users by making such a big change while the page was protected, and then didn't even explain it to us. You weren't correcting edit warring or vandalism that occurred prior to the page protection. I believe that the proper role for an admin in such a case is to discuss the change and then wait until the protection expires before making the edit. That's what a regular user would have to do. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that it's the right course of action. UncleDouggie (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't see it as a big change. I do clean-ups of disambiguation pages all the time, and when those dabs include non-trivial lists of surname-holders or given-name-holders, I split them off to their appropriate articles. I disagree with what the "proper" role for an admin would be here in applying fixes that are unrelated to the disputed content. Just because other editors can't do something doesn't mean it's the wrong course of action either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not commenting on whether it was a good idea or not, although I might shortly. My comment here has to do with respect for the non-admins of the world. UncleDouggie (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'm explaining that the edit was not disrespectful of the non-admins of the world. But, unless you now (or still) think that it was a bad edit, why don't we just assume good faith and continue to work on the encyclopedia? -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I support having two to four "most important" uses in the lead, in decreasing order of hits; I trust the editors who have stated that this puts The Rail Splitter first. I have read the suggestion that the cities should go first because "Lincoln" is all they have, whereas Abe has a first name.  Very well, but speaking for myself, I usually type in just a last name when searching (which is how I discovered the mess at Garza) and expect to quickly jump to the person I want.Matchups 03:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Goat rope
What a goat rope. The discussion and reverts are picking the fly poop out of the pepper. Take a step back and look at the entire DAB page. It is completely out of line with convention. My recomendation: Erector Euphonious (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Set aside your personal opinion for the time being.
 * Read and learn the Manual
 * Review a few good example DABs. Look at the histories on how they have been improved
 * Prioritize the major format and style problems, then fix them
 * Correct the individual entries (i.e. DAB not a definition page: $5 bill gets nixed)


 * Thanks for your concern, but "picking fly poop out of paper" is actually progressing to some kind of consensus with a lot of support for Bkonrad's proposal. Nev1 (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The analogy was on pepper, but the point was that the solutions were trivial to the problem. The page should first follow the guidelines and standards established for a DAB.  The time and effort spent trying to better this is commendable.  The direction of travel, less than optimal.  Erector Euphonious (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The recommendation in the guideline would have Abraham Lincoln a fair ways down the page. I'm not sure this is an ideal solution. (In order to clarify what I'm refering to here, it is the recommended ordering system. Lincoln would come under 3. Articles with the item as part of the name: (Electronic keyboard as part of a Keyboard dab page); including usage as a give name or surname by my reckoning) -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Most common use of term needs to be at top
The MOS for disambiguation pages is pretty clear: the most commonly sought after articles should be at the top and, in general, the ordering should be from most common to least common. Without a doubt Abraham Lincoln needs to be at the top. It looks like someone just alphabetized the whole thing or something, because Canadian cities, no offense to Canadians, are going to be the least sought over things by the vast majority of our reader. Lincoln, Nebraska should be near the top somewhere, with the rest falling into place below.

I also think a straight redirect to Abraham Lincoln would be good (with the stansard link to the Lincoln disambiguation page at the top), though with the misplaced outrage against that idea it probably won't happen and a compromise should be reached. DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We've worked out something on the lines of "Abraham Lincoln at the top, a few other common things next, and the rest the same." You're correct in saying that a redirect is DOA Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A compromise has already been reached. Jeni  ( talk ) 16:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why Lincoln, Nebraska second? Yes, I know it is the state capital, but if you are going to order by adminstrative importance Lincoln, UK also has a case and is also a substantial city. That will cause endless nitpicking and worse, will not be understood by passing editors who will keep changing it.  Places arranged by location/alpha as at present is both easily understood, and more importantly, easy for our readers to locate the sought article.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  16:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Despite people half-heartedly suggesting the dab page be turned into a redirect, I have yet to see evidence (admittedly difficult in this case) or at least a convincing argument that says the majority of people coming to this page are looking for Abraham Lincoln. No one is disputing that he's important and frequently viewed, but in the context of just "Lincoln" I don't think changing this page into a redirect will help readers. Nev1 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there's no way to really prove it one way or t'other. Look at this way Nev: Lincoln has 20-30x as many hits as anything else.  Based on what I can tell from the ratios of people who have their last name redirect to their article (Churchill, Reagan, Biden, Nixon, and Obama), the number of people who check the last name seems to be in the vicinity of 5-7%.  If you take 5-7% of Lincoln’s hits, he still has as much or more as anything with Lincoln in it.  Logical justification for having Abe at the top of the Lincoln page, at least Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As well as other things existing, it is not exactly analagous to compare things like Biden, Obama and Reagan to this situation. There is hardly a great swarm of places with those names or even that many people. Got no problem with Abraham Lincoln at the top (as he lacks a qualifier), then the big settlements in alphabetical. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 18:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comparing Lincoln with Churchill, Obama, etc is a fallacious argument because, as Narson points out, there aren't very many well known places with the same name (I'd argue that Churchill shouldn't be a redirect either, but that's by the by). I agree, there's no definitive way to prove it, but just because Abraham Lincoln gets 30 times as many views as any other link on this page doesn't mean that people who come here are looking for the ex-president, does it? This page gets about 17,500 views a month. So ask yourself what's more likely when someone types Lincoln into Wikipedia's search box: that they're looking for a famous ex-president with a very well known first name (seriously, very well known even here in England) or that they're looking for something else such as a place and don't realise that there are lot's of places with the same name? I know which one I think sounds more plausible. Nev1 (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the average is more like 25K/month, but obviously this is still much less than Abraham Lincoln. The further problem is we don't know how many people arrive at Abraham Lincoln via a link rather than typing it in. Given the large number of direct links, it's still very possible that the majority of readers of this dab page are looking for Abraham Lincoln. We just don't know and we need a way to solve this. I believe the only fair solution is to go by the hit count of the linked-to pages. Otherwise this will just keep reigniting down the road. If we put the most common usages right at the top, it doesn't really inconvenience readers either way. It's not a question of importance. If there was a rock star named Lincoln, poor old Abe could find himself displaced. I understand it's hard to accept that there is another common usage of a name you hold dear. Lots of times I've typed in something that I expected would lead directly to a page and had to scroll through 20 other usages that I hadn't been thinking about in the least. UncleDouggie (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also interesting to see that the all-knowing oracle disagrees with all of us. UncleDouggie (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there's Google and Google - which agrees with some of us! A related point is that Lincoln, Lincolnshire is probably the only one in the list that is almost never referred to in ordinary speeech as anything other than "Lincoln".  As Nev1 has said, the president is often referred to as Abraham Lincoln.  Even the car would be referred to as " a Lincoln" or "the Lincoln".  Lincoln, Lincolnshire is almost never used (it's not even a correct postal address) (Lincoln, Lincolnshire, should probably be moved to Lincoln, England, but that's another discussion.)  Mhockey (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew this was going to happen about 30 seconds after hitting Save page. What a fine mess we have now. Let's see what others say. UncleDouggie (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it sums up that there probably is no primary usage for the term 'Lincoln' and we should just have the big likely candidates up top and then the by category lists. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see both your Googles and raise you a Google - a more independent source. While I think the page is acceptable at the moment, it would certainly be worth figuring out how many of the hits here want Abe Lincoln.  Here's an outside-the-box suggestion (that may or may not be against Wikipedia policy).  What if we retargeted "Abraham Lincoln" on this dab page to a temporary, obscure redirect?  In a week or so, we could compare stats on how many people viewed the dab page and how many viewed the redirect, and calculate the percentages.  This will only work, of course, if the redirect page has an obscure enough title not to be searched for independently, and if no one tries to over-inflate the stats in either direction.  --Zach425 talk / contribs 00:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, that’s not such a bad idea. My reflex was in an ideal world we could do this but that it just isn’t practical. It would cause too much disruption to send the reader to the wrong page if they’re really looking for the article on Abraham Lincoln. But we could set up a redirect, ie: Lincoln can refer to Abraham Lincoln and on "unlikely page title" we could have #REDIRECTAbraham Lincoln . This would give us some useful page view stats and wouldn’t inconvenience the reader. Nev1 (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That probably violates some sort of policy. I'd float it with a synop first.  Anyway, it's pretty much Snowball for Konrad's, so I called it (see below) Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you’re responding to Zach’s suggestion (I’m not sure because of your indentation), as long as it’s not disruptive, I don’t see how it could be violating policy. A piped link to a redirect page would still take the reader to the intended target. It’s an interesting suggestion if nothing else. You’re probably right, and now consensus has been established we should leave it, but I can’t help being curious :-) Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Creating Lincoln (president) as the redirect and then linking to it as "Lincoln may refer to: *Lincoln (president) or Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States " would not violate any policy, and would not need the pipe link (which would go contrary to the dab guidelines). But you'd need similar redirects-for-experimental-counts for the other contenders for primary-topicness too, to make the counts most meaningful. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've instituted this change. I think it's OK (if not ideal) to leave the others (i.e., non-Abraham Lincoln) as they are - worst case scenario, the statistics for these will be slightly over-inflated compared to those for Lincoln (president). But if anyone has the time to add redirect pages for these as well, go for it. Either way, we'll see what the stats say in a week or two to help inform our discussion. —Zach425 talk / contribs 19:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Give it a few months; the first weeks will be skewed because it's new and under discussion here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Calling it
Consensus is BKonrad's version should be there. So it's there. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Section headings
One issue resolved, but there's still work to do to get the page to the guidelines in MOS:DAB. The guidelines tell us that "subject areas should be chosen carefully to simplify navigation". So
 * We have established that many people think of Lincoln first as a surname, so we need a section head for People, even if it only has one article (Lincoln (surname)) in it (actually I can see two in that section). That way it will appear in the table of contents near the top of the page, not get lost under Other uses.  I know the MOS says we should usually avoid very short sections, but the test is whether it helps or hinders navigation.
 * the See also section looks too long. A page on a topic which might be commonly referred to as plain Lincoln does not really belong there (e.g. Lincoln College).  I suggest a section headed Educational establishments.  Some at least of the place-names in the See also section (Lincoln Township?) also look as if they might be commonly referred to as plain Lincoln, and if so might better go under Places.  Mhockey (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have revised the sections so that navigation is improved, imho. Abtract (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On 27 September 2009, we experienced a minor edit war between Mhockey and Abtract over which placement of Lincoln (surname) achieved consensus. The root problem can be traced back to when JHunterJ substantially edited the page, creating the Lincoln (surname) topic, while the page was protected and BKonrad's proposal was already under discussion. I was never satisfied with the resulting placement of Lincoln (surname). Mhockey's move was a welcome relief and Abtract's further update (both on 8 September 2009 – one day after implementation of BKonrad's proposal) was even better. Given the extreme interest in this discussion, 19 days of no-contest to Abtract's action shows that other editors didn't have a problem with it. Mhockey instead restored his structure that existed for only 24 minutes before editing by Abtract. I believe that 19 days beats out 24 minutes and I'm restoring Abtract's version. Mhockey is welcome to state his case here and attempt to reach a new consensus for his approach. UncleDouggie (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To further clarify: Mhockey's proposal for a "People" section never actually existed in the article on 8 September, it was only proposed here. Abtract then performed the implementation by moving Lincoln (surname) into the intro 24 minutes later without objection. UncleDouggie (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "19 days beats out 24 minutes" is particularly relevant. I could equally say "a debate contributed to by at least 12 editors leading to consensus beats the opinion of one or two". After the heat generated by the original discusssion, I guess editors were looking for a period of relection. On the substantive issues: I believe that a People section is a good compromise between adding to the lead and relegating Lincoln (surname) to the Other uses section. It is also interesting to note that most of the equivalent dab pages in other language WPs do have a People section.Mhockey (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bkonrad's proposal which achieved consensus was to include the four most common usages of Lincoln in the lead (and only those four). It did not include any people with the surname Lincoln other than Abraham Lincoln, none of whom are particularly prominent or can be said to be common usages of Lincoln.  It did not seem right to upset such a recent consensus.
 * My proposal for a People section received neither support nor opposition (probably more edit fatigue), but I am happy to argue for it here. First, it aids navigation, which is the key principle we should follow in the structure of dab pages.  Second, Lincoln is widely used as both a personal name and a place name, and it seems odd not to have sections for each usage.  Third, if we accept that Lincoln (surname) (for people other than the president) is not one of the most common usages, then to relegate it to an Other usages section goes too far the other way.  If we believe that Lincoln (surname) is one of the most common usages, why not also include Lincoln (placename) - an even more common usage?
 * If we had all the people with the name Lincoln on this page, I would agree with you. However, the people were all moved to Lincoln (surname). We don't have a Lincoln (placename), they are all here in their own section, which is fine. We're trying to make things easy for users. Making them go to People and then over to Lincoln (surname) before they even start looking for the name they want makes it more confusing. Besides, Lincoln (surname) isn't a person; it's a link to a dab like page of people. Dab links are supposed to be in See also, but that's crazy in this case. UncleDouggie (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're exaggerating the difficulty of finding the surname link under the People heading; if the People category is directly underneath "Lincoln may also refer to:", as has been suggested it should be immediately visible to virtually every user as soon as the page is loaded. I sincerely think it's easier for users to find the link underneath the giant People heading than to find it as the fifth item in the list at the top. (Also, I may be wrong, but I don't believe guidance suggests that all disambiguation pages should be linked under "See Also"; I believe the guidance is to place both links and disambiguation pages under "See Also" when the topic is something relatively unlikely to be referred to as just Lincoln, like "Lincoln Center.") Propaniac (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One point of clarification: surname articles and surname-holder lists are not disambiguation pages, since the articles listed there are not ambiguous with the title. They are articles under the WikiProject Anthroponymy project. If the surname entries is not in the lede, I think it should be moved to the "other uses" section/group. It's not a "people" like the footballer is. JHunterJ (talk) -- 12:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure that's quite right. If people are commonly referred to by surname, then there is ambiguity if more than one notable person carries that surname, so that a list of people with the surname must be a dab page.  After all, this whole debate started because of someone commonly referred to as Lincoln.  Mhockey (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost. People who are commonly referred to by just the ambiguous word are ambiguous. That's why Abe and the footballer are on this page. People who aren't commonly referred to by just there surname aren't ambiguous. That's why the other name holders appear on the nameholder list article and not here -- nobody looking for Mary Todd would expect to reach that article by entering "Lincoln" in the search box. So the surname-holder list lists people who hold a surname but who aren't necessarily ambiguous with the surname, and so it's not a disambiguation page. (see WikiProject Anthroponymy if you want more on this.) Normally, people fall in to that second group. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you might well look for Mrs Lincoln by typing Lincoln. The problem with MOS:DABSUR as it stands is that there may be little evidence as to whether the individuals are commonly referred to only by surname.  In common speech individuals are often referred to by surname in certain contexts, which is why they need to be disambiguated.  The discussions on this issue seem to mostly consist of assertions that surname pages are not dab pages, with little in the way of rationale.  Of course a page titled Lincoln (surname) could be an article about the surname Lincoln, but it is not.  It is a list of people with the surname Lincoln, which does serve to disambiguate them, whether you call it a dab page or not.  Mhockey (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that one might well look for Mrs. Lincoln by typing Lincoln. But in any event, the consensus so far has been to introduce an inconvenience for the hypothetical readers who might well look for people by their surname (they have to click through the dab page to a surname article to get to the list of people by their surname) in exchange for a convenience for other readers (who don't have to load long pages or scan through a list of name holders to find entries that might actually have been titled with the ambiguous word). By your reasoning, every list article is a disambiguation page, since you can look at any list as if it were disambiguating its entries. Proposals to bring that reasoning into the guidelines should be made at the guideline talk pages though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So how would people look for Mrs Lincoln? Not, I think, by typing Lincoln (surname).  I do not understand your conclusion that by my reasoning every list article is a dab page.  Of course it is not.  My reasoning is based solely on the fact that people are often referred to by surname, so that you need to disambiguate people with the same surname.  Whether you include them in the main dab page or a separate page is a secondary issue.  But as other editors have said, the surname page does not really belong in an Other uses section.Mhockey (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Mary Lincoln" --> Mary Lincoln --> Mary Todd Lincoln. "Mrs. Lincoln" --> Mary Todd Lincoln. "Lincoln's wife" --> search results --> Mary Todd Lincoln. "Lincoln" --> Lincoln --> (Lincoln (surname) or Abraham Lincoln) --> Mary Todd Lincoln. People are not often referred to only by surname. People tend to be first referred to (in reliable sources) by their given name(s) + surname and then subsequently referred to by only the surname. It doesn't not belong in an Other uses section either. An Other uses section is for all uses that don't belong in any of the groups that might otherwise hold several of the entries. Personally, I have no issue with it being in the lead group along with Abraham et al., nor with it being in Other uses. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You've sort of proved my point, that users might look for Mrs Lincoln by typing Lincoln and hitting Go (rather than Search). The test for inclusion of an article in a dab page is not whether that is the only route by which a user might find the right article, but wheher it is a "plausible" way.  See WP:DAB.  And it's users who matter here, not the usage in reliable sources.  People may not often be referred to by surname where you live, but they are where I live.  We should not be too dogmatic about this. Mhockey (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and that's why we include the link to the list of people. Propaniac (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (after ec) No, I haven't. I disagree that users might look for Mrs. Lincoln by typing Lincoln and hitting Go. All I've "proven" is that if they did, they could get there; there is no proof or indication that this is a likely path. The test for inclusion of an article in a dab page is whether the article could plausibly be expected to be titled with the ambiguous word. No one's going to expect to find an article on Mary Todd Lincoln to be titled simply "Lincoln", because they're not ambiguous. Nobody where you live or where I live has ever referred to Mrs. Lincoln by just "Lincoln" without first more fully identifying her(Mrs. Lincoln, Mary Todd Lincoln, Lincoln's wife, something). Proposals to make the current guidelines "less dogmatic" should be made at the guideline talk pages though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

See also section
Why do we have Lincoln Green and Port Lincoln relegated to the See also section while Lincoln Records and Lincoln Snacks Company get billing in the main sections? The same can be said for many other entries. I don't see how this follows MOS:DAB. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be that those in the main body of the article are those known as Lincoln, and those in the see also simply have Lincoln in the name. Whether that is the case here I don't know. Abtract (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not what we have. Just look at all pages that start with Lincoln. Lincoln Snacks Company claims to be known as Lincoln Snacks, not just Lincoln. The same is probably true for Lincoln Highway. Furthermore, MOS:DAB says that most of these don't even belong anywhere on the page. I'd like to get more consensus on this before making a change because it will throw the categories into disarray. UncleDouggie (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am an inclusionist ... it seems better to me to include doubtful items just in case. Abtract (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Lincoln Snacks and other entries whose articles don't indicate that they are referred to as just Lincoln should be moved to the See also section or removed. Like Abtract, I tend to retain them if another editor wants their inclusion, but then they belong in the See also section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's certainly nice to have everything a user might be looking for in the See also section. Some other dab pages link to all pages that start with Lincoln under See also, at the expense of duplicating results already covered on the dab page. Lincoln Snack Company has 250 page views per month and was probably added for promotional reasons at some distant time. Lincoln bible has 500 page views/month, but we don't have that on the dab page. With a common name like Lincoln, it would be nice to get agreement on what our criteria is for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UncleDouggie (talk • contribs) 11:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Things that are referred to as just "Lincoln" (and so are ambiguous) are included. Things that aren't aren't. If there's disagreement over whether a thing is or isn't referred to as "Lincoln", the "See also" section may make a good home for it. Otherwise, we use the Talk page to determine consensus for any given item or set of items. As for the "lookfrom" template, I'd rather see that at the end of the "See also" section than the beginning. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that when a company's name is in the format "Foo Company" or "Foo Widget Company", where Foo is a last name or a unique word followed by a generic descriptor of the type of company, it's reasonable to assume that the company will, at least sometimes, be referred to as just Foo. For example, Ford Motor Company and The Hershey Company are commonly referred to as just Ford and Hershey. It seems highly likely that someone looking for Lincoln Snack Company might refer to it as just Lincoln, and/or might know the Lincoln part of the name but not the rest. (Do any of you think you know the full official names of every company you're familiar with? I certainly don't.)
 * The "See Also" section should not be used to list every single topic with Lincoln in the name, such as Lincoln Imp, simply because there's no rationale to include these topics in the main body of the dab page. The Manual of Style says:

There may be a "See also" section, which can include such items as:


 * Terms which can be confused with Title, for example New Market and Newmarket
 * Likely misspellings of Title, for example Belmont, Belmonte and Bellmont
 * Different forms of Title, for example Splitting, Split, and Splitter
 * Links to indexes of article titles beginning with Title (using ) and/or article titles containing Title (using )
 * On the other hand, I moved Lincoln biscuit and Lincoln City F.C. out of "See Also" and into the main body because the former begins "The Lincoln is..." and the latter refers to the F.C. throughout the article as just "Lincoln," good enough evidence for me. Propaniac (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)