Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/2006-03-26 dump

Indo-European
So as not to appear to be dropping them completely, I'm putting there here. The following two comments were added to the list under "Indo-European" as I was working. The dab page was moved to "Indo-European (disambiguation)" in while I was working, but I adjusted. Dpv 23:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * was based on a faulty naming scheme (e.g. not OK with Naming conventions (plurals)) and a dubious dab scheme - all of that currently rearranged in these three pages: Indo-European (disambiguation), Indo-European people and Indo-European language --Francis Schonken 14:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The rearrangement makes the naming convention better; however, it only masks the dab problem through redirection. I'll make notes on the specific pages I change, and continue the dab work. Dpv 15:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Dumb question

 * Links should be fixed on all pages (user, talk etc), right?  Dei zio  22:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To quote Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links, "Talk:", "User:", and "Wikipedia:" administrative pages do not necessarily need to be fixed. Dpv 23:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice one. Good job I was holding off on those ones.  Dei zio  23:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not to say that you can't fix them - it's just not necessary. -- Nataly a 01:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Motif
Re: pages linking to the Motif disambiguation, there are many instances of the word "motif" being used where "theme" would be more accurate, particularly in literature-related entries. Should those be sent to Motif (literature) as the closest match?

There's also somewhat of a gray area in other uses, particularly in film and game entries. Depending upon usage (imagery vs. storytelling), there are places where "theme" would also seem more appropriate. However, a case could also be made for Motif (literature) or Motif (art) (the latter of which is a one-line entry) on a case-by-case basis. I did my best with ~10 entries before stopping. I don't want to make more work for other Wikipedians. Some help and discussion would be greatly appreciated. —PaperTruths 03:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Cross-posted to the main project talk page, where I originally meant to put this. (Duh.) —PaperTruths 03:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If a link to theme is more appropriate than a link to motif (literature), there's nothing wrong with piping the link to theme. -- Nataly a 16:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)