Template talk:Geodis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Guidelines on use 2 why exist? 3 Category 4 Template 5 Use with ambiguous place-names 6 Template's saying changed

[edit] Guidelines on use

This article consisting of geographical locations is a disambiguation page, a list of pages that otherwise might share the same title. If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.

This template has just been added to the Aida (disambiguation) page, which tells users that Aida is an opera, a musical, a term used in marketing, a cruise ship line, a type of cloth, a Spanish television series, a figure in ballroom dancing, and a chain of coffeehouses. And, oh yes, a town and district in Japan.

At the same time the old {{disambig}} was deleted.

Is there a policy on this removal? To me this borders on the ridiculous. <KF> 18:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

No, there isn't a policy - however it's noted at Category:Disambiguation that the general category is getting rather large. However, I do note that it may be ridiculous to category a disambig as just one type - what I'm doing for ones that are both names and geography, I put both {{geodis}} and {{hndis}}. Perhaps we could develop disambig tags and subcategories for the arts etc. But might the page then get too cluttered with tags? Enochlau 01:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] why exist?

I don't understand the value in this template? How does it give more/better information than a simple disambig tag? Where is the benefit? Tedernst | talk 23:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a vigorous discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) William Allen Simpson 14:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category

This category was nominated for deletion or renaming on 2006 March 16. The result of the discussion was Keep, but Merge with Category:Lists of ambiguous place names.

As the category is being kept, we should keep this template as well. It's a simple way to add the category. --William Allen Simpson 23:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

This template was considered for deletion or renaming on 2006 March 25. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Use with ambiguous place-names

I'm trying to decide if Tom's Restaurant should have geodis instead of the standard disambig. It refers readers to two different unassociated restaurants with the same name in New York City (by some really weird coincidence, I've been to both in the last month, hence my interest). Thoughts? -/- Warren 22:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template's saying changed

I disagree strongly with the change as there is now no way of telling people that what they are looking at isn't a normal DAB page but a GEODIS page as this was useful for the reader and for the editors. I would like if this modification was reverted as there is no consensus IMO for such a change. Lincher 19:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It is still a disambiguation page, and the reader can clearly see that place names are listed. —Centrx→talk • 19:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean, the geodis tag as it now looks, doesn't lead the user to know that this DAB is a geographical one only. Lincher 19:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are many disambiguation pages that have place names in addition to other terms. I don't think we should have a separate template for "This is a disambiguation page that contains place names and also disambiguates between other things too, etc." or that it would be appropriate to split them into separate pages. —Centrx→talk • 19:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents on this. The way I personally was using this template was adding it to disambiguation pages that only list geographical entities, going with regular {{disambig}} if at least one entity of another kind was added. I can see how it is a less-than-ideal solution, but I also don't see how making this template essentially a copy of {{disambig}} solves anything. The geodis template is still here, true, but now it simply duplicates the disambig template, which is pretty much the same as deleting the geodis altogether and redirecting it to disambig. In my view, we should either keep the old wording or delete this template for good and use disambig for all cases. Also, why is geodis targeted, but, say {{hndis}}, is not? That template has exactly the same problems as this one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference is the category, and there was much more agreement that the category was useful. The only substantive difference between Template:Disambig and Template:Geodis before was that it is a page "consisting of geographical locations", which is quite obvious regardless of the template. —Centrx→talk • 21:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A matter of taste, I guess. Besides, it is not always obvious that a page consists solely of geographic locations, especially when there are many of them.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What would be the point of distinguishing pages based on whether they consist solely of geographical locations or not? We shouldn't have another template to say "This page consists partially of geographical locations", or"This page consists partially of geographical locations and human names, but the people were not necessarily born in those geographical locations". —Centrx→talk • 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just like I said above—it's a matter of personal preference. Knowing at a glance whether the page lists only geographic locations or not is very useful in what I do in Wikipedia. Admittedly, the benefit to an average reader is much less clear-cut.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)