Talk:Nazi (disambiguation)

Reorganisation
I very strongly disagree with your latest reorganisation of this disambiguation page, a reorganisation that follows in no way from the RfD discussion; the contents of the DAB page weren't up for discussion, or discussed, at all there. A disambiguation page called Nazi should absolutely contain Nazi Germany and the Nazi Party, and do so prominently. Also, as there's no such thing as "Capitalist [Name of nation]" or a widely known "Capitalist Party", there is no reason to model this page after Capitalist. I think the previous version, which was also authored by you, was perfect. Can you please restore it? Lennart97 (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to restore it myself, actually. We can discuss here if any changes should be made. Lennart97 (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * @ we should base the style of the disambiguation page on official guidelines, per MOS:DABPRIMARY and MOS:DABENTRY since the main redirect is Nazism, as agreed upon in our redirects for discussion, we should prioritize Nazism because the page without the part "(disambiguation)" leads to the ideology and not anything else. PyroFloe (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Those guidelines say nothing about leaving relevant entries out of the disambiguation page altogether, just because they happen to be mentioned in the primary topic article. By that logic, you might as well leave the primary topic itself out of the DAB page too. I think it's undisputed that both Nazi Germany and Nazi Party are more relevant search targets than any of the other, not-Nazism-related DAB entries, by many orders of magnitude. That means not just that they should be included at all, but also that they should be included prominently.


 * I'd also like to note that the main argument based upon which the discussion at RfD was closed basically amounted to "current arrangement works fine" aka If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why shouldn't we apply the same reasoning to this disambiguation page then? There's clearly no harm in, or anything inherently wrong with, giving prominence to the three most relevant entries at the top of the page. I would actually argue that this solution is closer to the spirit of DABPRIMARY, if not to the letter; and it's just a guideline after all, anyway. Lennart97 (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)