Talk:Aperture (disambiguation)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aperture (disambiguation) page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aperture Science

Why doesn't Aperture Science deserve its own note on this article? It's... well-known-ish. I'd say it's notable. I'd like to hear reasons against it, and perhaps have explained to me what makes an article noteworthy enough.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow Scythe of Strongbadia?! (talk • contribs) 22:10, January 19, 2008

I think that not ambiguous with "aperture", as the edit summary said, was a better reason than anything about what it might deserve. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Dick pointed out, it can't appear in the main list because it isn't ambiguous. Disambiguation pages are a navigation aid to assist readers in cases where several unrelated things have the same or similar names. They are not a general-purpose index. No reasonable person is going to make a link to aperture and expect to get an article on Aperture Science, so it has no reason to appear here.

Dab pages often (as this one does) also contain a "see also" list at the end, which contains terms which are not ambiguous but could be confused with the ambiguous term or are otherwise very strongly related to it. Aperture Science doesn't really qualify there either.

The complete guidelines on disambiguation pages are at Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).--Srleffler (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, though, that Aperture Science may not deserve its own article, but shouldn't this page at least contain a link that redirects those searching for Aperture Science to the article about the game Portal? Search already does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenFox12 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because anyone searching for "Aperture Science" does get the correct article. Someone searching for "Aperture" when they want "Aperture Science" is just being dumb. They will end up here, realize they did something stupid, and enter the correct search term. There is no need to disambiguate "Aperture Science".--Srleffler (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personaly belive Aperture Science dosent need its own article, but this disambagulation page should link to the Portal article on see also.The Smiling Bandit (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You either do not understand the purpose of dab pages, or have not read the discussion above, or both. "Aperture Science" is not ambiguous with "aperture". There is simply no reason for it to be here.--Srleffler (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to go into the "see also" section. i for one know that the internet is full of stupid people who will type in aperture and expect aperture science to be there. The Smiling Bandit (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then they can type in the term they actually wanted to find, and get the correct article. Dab pages are for disambiguation. They are not indexes of every possible use of a term, and especially not indexes of terms that aren't even notable enough to merit their own article.--Srleffler (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mesa's disambiguation page has "Black Mesa" on it. Rocket's disambiguation page has "Team Rocket" on it. I could go on and on. Aperture Science deserves a mention on the Aperture disambiguation page. PieGuy64 (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other pages do not follow the rules is not a valid argument for why this page shouldn't. Thanks for pointing out other pages that need to be fixed. They will be taken care of.--Srleffler (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, fair enough. I disagree both with the rule in general and with your decision to leave such things off of pages, but if you prefer to enforce a rule that only decreases utility of the site (especially for those who, as you claim, are "just being dumb") then far be it from me to stop you.PieGuy64 (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored Aperture Laboratories. Inclusion of this term is not problematic by Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and following the amount of readition on history, dont see any reason to delete it again. Aperture Laboratories is the main element of those games, and most known one, and it is easy to see that that name is almost like a brand. And as we have several terms under the same name, Aperture, (Aperture Science, Aperture Fixtures, Aperture Laboratories, Aperture Science Innovators) it is ambiguous. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]