Talk:Karen (disambiguation)

MoS:DAB and ENeville's shifts.

First off, the name bit. I actually agree with offloading name information to a separate page... when it becomes too cluttered and the page too long. Then, I entirely approve of making a (name) page that not only has information on the name, but also the list of people bearing that name. (In rare cases, even those pages might be separate- a list and a history!) That said, this page is still short, and I don't think we need to fork it yet.

As for organization, again, this page is short, so organization isn't necessarily needed, though it might still be appropriate, if that makes any sense. I might well have left the organizations in, except that you were not capitalizing the first letter, and generally using something somewhat non-standard. Typically I try and use, as per the MoS:DAB examples-

In topic:

Or occasionally

In topic1 or topic2:

Oddly enough, people is an exception, because "In people" sounds just wrong. I use either "Among specific people" (for lists of actual people) or "In demography" for something like the Karen people. I also try and use the somewhat more stately "or" over a slash.

The redlinks issue was already brought up, but yeah, I figure some of these might eventually have articles.

As for personal styles that not all editors agree with, but I happen to think are correct, I'll just say that I dislike something like "KAREN, the Kiwi Advanced Research and Education Network." Great, now I know the name- what is it? I try and keep separate names to the left of the comma (hence something like Foreign name (English: English name), a whatever.) On the same token, I generally dislike repeating the name of the page over and over again- so if there is no link, I prefer to just say "A widget" as opposed to "Foo, a widget" if the top of the page says "Foo may refer to."

I hope this clarifies why I reverted. SnowFire 04:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per Third Opinion request: I agree with the reverts, mainly on the grounds that the proposed changes would render the DAP quite different in appearance to the MoS guideline, without providing any additional clarity or ease of navigation.

Changes to the DAP should provide an actual improvement; if purely stylistic, then the changes should not be made, in accord with established policy.

I've removed the Third Party Opinion request from the request page. CastorQuinn 02:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the third opinion. I appreciate the time and effort extended.

I do think that it's important to note that the Meta page on reversion strongly cautions against simply reverting, and instead encourages modification. I point this out because I think it an important issue that has been missed in the discussion thus far, and worth including for the edification or those who may review it in the future.

It seems to me apparent that the rules (or whatever exactly they're called on Wikimedia) are extensive enough that they are a learning experience for everyone, as I acknowledge they are for me.

Case in point: I have not been able to find reference to policy on purely stylistic changes. Where are such described? ENeville 19:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Base name

It would probably make more sense to move this article to Karen (disambiguation) and move the new Karen (name) article to the base name. Yes? -- JHunterJ 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be reasonable. ENeville 19:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that should have been done long ago ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]