Talk:Stirling (disambiguation)

Organization
I noticed that Kmsiever recently reorganized this page, to put Sterling, Scotland at the top, and everything else subordinate. Remember, a dab page is supposed to be a signpost for people looking for the right article. Looking at the way it was and the way it is now, I find the former much easier to navigate. I realize Sterling, Scotland is quite old, but I don't see that as leading to the current form being a better dab page. Perhaps "Places" should have been moved up to the top, and the original non-sectioned entries be moved down to a bottom "Other". Thoughts? — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved it because it is the article not disambiguated with any other qualifier (compared to say Stirling (council area)] or [[Stirling, Alberta for example). Since it is simply just Stirling and not qualified with anything else, it must be the most notable. If someone does a search for "stirling" for example, that is the page the will come to. If this dab page should be the page searchers come to and itself be renamed to Stirling, then that is another discussion to have. As per WP:MOSDAB:


 * "When a page has '(disambiguation)' in the title, users are unlikely to stumble on it by accident. They will arrive there by clicking on a link from the primary topic article, by searching, or by directly typing its URL."


 * "Since it is unlikely that this well-known meaning is what they are looking for, it should not be mixed in with the other links. It is recommended to place the link back to the primary topic at the top."


 * --Kmsiever (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see where you're coming from there, and that reason makes perfect sense for the Sterling link itself. But the rest of the items under Sterling seem (to me) to make navigation harder, by disrupting the flow of the page.  Perhaps move them to within a section, then?  • Or, as you say, perhaps the real question is if Sterling should be the dab page, and the article should be moved to Sterling, Scotland or something similar.  I have no idea how we would determine that.  Thoughts on that?  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They're grouped like that because they are directly related to the subject of the Stirling article. As far as whether this article needs to be renamed, well there would have to be a consensus reached that suggests others in this dab page are just as notable as the subject at the Stirling article. The only reason Stirling has the title it does is because someone determined that it was more notable than all the other things named Stirling. I wasn't part of the naming of that article, so I am not sure of the rationale used for it. I had never heard of that city until I came across this article, so I doubt I am the person to verify its level of notability. I'd suggest starting a discussion over there, or starting a new discussion here and let the editors there know about it. See WP:RM for more info. --Kmsiever (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)