Talk:Lisa

Reversion of "extraneous links"
In this diff, which I've now reverted, eliminated links to KDE, Weird Science and Internet Oracle, with the edit summary "rv - no one is going to link to "Lisa" when they really meant "Weird Science". That is the purpose of disamb pages."

I think there's a misunderstanding of the purpose of disambiguation pages here. No one should ever link to them, at least not intentionally. The point of DP's are twofold:
 * 1) If someone types the title as a search term into the search box and clicks "Go", the page should get them to where they really wanted to go with a click;
 * 2) If someone does link to the page, not knowing that it is a DP, a later editor should be able to use the page to find the proper link target to replace the original link with.

An entry with no link at all does not help for either purpose. With the links, if someone typed "Lisa", intending to read about the Internet Oracle's girlfriend, they'd discover that there's not a dedicated article on that subject, but they are invited to get to the article (Internet Oracle) that discusses her. Without the links, they'd have to type, again, to get to the article (or perhaps will think that there exists no article that discusses the topic).

Each entry on a DP should have exactly one navigable link, no more, no less. More than one makes navigation off the page (the point of DP's) harder; less than one makes it impossible without typing. --TreyHarris 16:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of judgement. We shouldn't have a disambiguation entry for every single movie, novel, and short story with a character named Lisa in it.  Is a particular Lisa at least notable enough to merit an article section? Then maybe she/it belongs here.  Otherwise, probably not.


 * Furthermore, there's a diminishing return on investment in obscure entries. How likely is an editor to link Lisa, and actually assume that the target page will be about the character from the movie Weird Science (1985)?  The correct response would be not to use link disambiguation, but to only link to Weird Science in the original source.


 * In this case, the article on KDE doesn't even mention "Lisa", so there's no point in "disambiguating" it here—the only possible result is confusion. —Michael Z. 2006-03-21 19:52 Z 


 * Oh, you'll get no argument from me if you remove the entries. My problem was just with maintaining an entry with no link at all—that totally ignores the ideas that dab pages are for navigation, and shouldn't impart information on their own. --TreyHarris


 * I've proposed a change to the MoS at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) to make this clearer. --TreyHarris 06:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

LiSA
Why redirect LiSA here, instead of LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987)? Seems unambiguous to me, and not something one would type by mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaloMartins (talk • contribs) 01:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

LiSA listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LiSA. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Changing "People with the mononym" to "Singer"
Since they all happen to be singers anyway, I figured why not change the section name. I argue people would benefit more when searching for articles when they know they're singers instead of them being different Lisas. Opecuted (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Also make it easier to put hatnote linking to different singers Opecuted (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's apt. The section is for People with the mononym; not for Singers. There are many singers named Lisa, e.g., Lisa Ekdahl, Lisa Germano, Lisa Hannigan. Labeling this section "Singers" means that these singers should be listed there, but that's not correct. The defining characteristic for being listed in this section is whether someone uses the mononym "Lisa"; not whether they are a singer named "Lisa", and using a section header "Singers" is misdescriptive. TJRC (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)