Talk:U2 (disambiguation)

Sensible arrangement of U2 meanings
I remember when Sun came up with the Java programming language, someone found many references in search engines to Java (Indonesia) but only a handful to Java (programming). Nowadays it's probably the other way round.

Following the scheme used for the Java entry, I split this disambiguation page into categories. I think it makes sense.

--Gabi S. 12:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This kind of arrangement is alright too, in my opinion. :) --Andylkl [ talk! 13:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but somebody should fix the link from Ben Rich's page to the Lockheed U2, instead of to this page

Primary topic
The primary topic for a disambiguation page "X (disambiguation)" is the page entitled "X". In this case, U2 is the primary topic for U2 (disambiguation). It does not matter whether other dab entries have or don't have a parenthetical if they aren't titled "U2". For this page, since it also combined the "U-2" disambiguation page, it might have had two primary topics, but there is no second primary topic article at U-2. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is POV pushing which ignores the fact that there are multiple "primary topics", not one defines the term, and that this was a compromise between parties. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Try to discuss this civilly, Ottava Rima. There is no POV-pushing in recognizing Wikipedia article placement strictly based on their page names. Claiming that there are multiple "primary topics" ignores the fact that there is exactly one article at U2 and none at U-2.
 * If the Lockheed U-2 is the primary topic for "U-2", make U-2 a redirect to it, add a hatnote to it, and it can be a "second primary topic" here.
 * If there is no primary topic for U2, request that U2 be moved to U2 (band) and U2 (disambiguation) be moved to U2.
 * Where was the compromise discussed? Perhaps with that information we can determine how to get the pages to correctly reflect the compromise. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No where in my language is incivility. However, accusations of such are incivil. I ask you to respect Wikipedia, respect consensus, and respect the guidelines. You edited without consensus. You ignored the page's history. You also edit without justification and reverted to a standard format. That is the basis for an edit war, and you made that action. If you actually looked through the histories of the multiple pages, you would see that both U-2 the plane and U2 the band have been determined as primary topics for U2, but since neither of them is the sole popular understanding, and one is not more popular than the other in its own area, a compromise was reached. By "favoriting" one above the other on the list, you would be breaking that compromise, just as those moving the plane up have done in the past. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Knee-jerk claims of POV pushing, of ignoring "facts", or of disrespecting Wikipedia/consensus/guidelines are incivil -- and the claim of ignoring the guidelines (such as WP:D and WP:MOSDAB) is hypocritical. Bringing a disambiguation page in line with the disambiguation page style guidelines is its justification. Please provide a link to the compromise discussion; I found no such compromise mentioned here or in the edit summaries of this page's history. If you are claiming that the band incorrectly occupies the primary topic name (see WP:D) and/or that the Lockheed is the primary topic for "U-2", then the solutions presented above are still the solutions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your actions prove that you pushed a point of view by making a claim and then reverting a revert back to its standard form that existed for multiple years. Don't try to wiggle out. You edit warred. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To sum up: you don't have a link to a discussion of this compromise, and you don't want to implement either of the solutions that would bring these pages in line with both the compromise and the disambiguation guidelines; taken together, these mean that I am trying to wiggle out of your accusations of POV pushing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, you really are incivil. Not only have you edit warred and ignored history, you attack others in order to push your own POV. I have already provided information to others on this topic. You entered without a clue and start reverting. If you want to disrupt Wikipedia, go ahead. However, you won't last long with that attitude. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)