Talk:Sandy River

Unnecessary additional hop
Hi. I 'unfolded' two entries on this page that led to secondary disambiguation pages and another editor changed it back, citing that "actually, this is standard practice for partial title matches". I would like to see where is this rule, but more important than that, I would like to know whether our main function is to create information in an as easy, uncomplicated, time-saving manner as possible; or are we to complicate matters by adhering to bureaucratic practices? What is wrong with having all these rivers on one page? Why should users have to open three pages to find the entry they are looking for? Let's be snsible and think first of the user. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:PTM. In this case, the question is whether rivers named "Big Sandy River" or "Little Sandy River" are easily confused with "Sandy River" or if they are just related forms. By duplicating content, you introduce the maintenance problem that the pages will over time become out of sync. It it quite likely that other articles may be created and added to the Big Sandy River (disambiguation) and Little Sandy River (disambiguation) and not be added to this page because the titles are not actually ambiguous. If any of the Big or Little Sandy rivers are also commonly known as simply "Sandy River" that fact should be attributed in the relevant articles and then there would be reason to include on this page. older ≠ wiser 19:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That helps. Thanks. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)