Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

dab templates without categories

These two dab templates:

• Template:Songdis talk
• Template:Substadis talk
• Template:Rdab talk

apparently were created without consensus in October of 2005. Both attempt to place articles in red-linked categories. On Dec 20th, I redirected both templates to the main disambig template and was reverted on Dec 30th.

I don't see any articles when I click "what links here" for either one. That may because I touched all of the articles that did use each one after I redirected. I can't remember if I did that or not, but the fact that I'm thinking of it makes me think I did do that. According to the table above, there were 6 and 14 pages using each at one point.

Thoughts? Tedernst | talk 22:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

edited to add another one Tedernst | talk 22:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

subcats

Just wanted to make everyone aware of the discussion and polls going on here:Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories Tedernst | talk 22:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Stamping out reflexive disambiguation in article titles, take two

I agree with the above comment in /archive2#Stamping out reflexive disambiguation in article titles that it is remarkably counterintuitive and circuitous to have a "page x" be a redirect to "page x (disambiguation)" when one could simply put the disambiguation on "page x" itself because there's no article there. It's always immediately clear when an article is a disambig page, unless it's formatted improperly; that's the entire point of the "disambig" notice to begin with! So is there nothing I or anyone else can do to fight this remarkably useless nuisance of a tendency to move perfectly good disambig pages to the same page with a redundant "(disambiguation)" notice added to the end where not at all necessary? Is there no ongoing debate, no consensus discussion, no way to enforce the Wikipedia guidelines regarding avoiding redirects when possible just because a few people want to arbitrarily impose the very awkward and lengthy "(disambiguation)" name on hundreds of page that don't even need it? Not only can I not move the pages myself 9 times out of 10, not being an admin, but now I can't even ask others to do it because there's no consensus one way or the other on the matter? I feel so impotent. :(

There's something terribly wrong with the world when Darwin redirects to Darwin (disambiguation), Titan to Titan (disambiguation), aether to Æther (disambiguation), excelsior to excelsior (disambiguation), expulsion to expulsion (disambiguation), lupus to lupus (disambiguation), and dozens of other blots upon the legacy of mankind, countless other redundant and arbitrary redirects to drive from me all faith in a just and loving God. And don't get me started on other arbitrary inconsistencies, like Agnus Dei redirecting to Lamb of God while the disambig is at Agnus Dei (disambiguation) (even though all that information could simply be in a "in popular cuture" and other similar sections on an "Agnus Dei" or "Lamb of God" article anyway, since it's all derived from the same exact source). Arr. Every time I see one of these pages, a little piece of my soul dies forever. What to do? -Silence 23:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you present a good reason to move a disambiguation page from Fooboo (disambiguation) to Fooboo? Why not just leave the situation alone in each case, doing the move has no benefit as far as I can see. Also, leaving Fooboo as a redirect allows it to redirected easily in the future.--Commander Keane 23:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do any of the trivial janitorial work that so many Wikipedians do, when the benefit is also seemingly limited (when compared to say, the benefit of contributing five paragraphs of sourced text)? Because when you shrug all the little things off, they begin to add up, and you end up with an inconsistent quagmire trying to come off as an encyclopedia. The reasons have already been stated. It's the same reason why The Beatles should not be reflexively redirected to The Beatles (1960s band): it's sloppy, inconsistent, reflexive, and a redirect that can be avoided.—jiy (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If you can get some consensus then I'll fix any of these things I come accross, and possibly get someone to use a database dump to help me track them all down. Maybe establish a quick pole at the MoS, since here is rather quiet.--Commander Keane 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the Generic pages swap checking section below, I'll start fixing these.--Commander Keane 08:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Generic pages swap checking

As you may have noticed, there's been some discussion about Primary versus Generic pages over at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Page naming Generic topic. Therefore, based on discussion, I just changed the text at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Generic topic.

Each "XYZZY (disambiguation)" page in Category:Disambiguation needs to be checked whether it has a Primary topic page. If it hasn't (either it doesn't exist or it's only a redirect), then the page should be moved from "XYZZY (disambiguation)" to "XYZZY".

That shouldn't be too hard, as there are only about 10% pages with "(disambiguation)" and only about half of them are actually generics needing to be moved for consistency. It doesn't require looking at the page for style, but it's as good an excuse as any. Share and enjoy!

--William Allen Simpson 08:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Subpage created

Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages has been created. You will notice the dump report there. I also copied across the discussion that used to be here.--Commander Keane 07:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ordinal directions: cartography articles or dab pages?

I came across Northwest today, which is catted as both a cartography stub and a dab page. It contains some article elements - an image and links to related topics, for example - but the text is mostly either Wiktionary-style definition or disambig elements. The other ordinal directions do not include the disambig template. Thoughts on whether these should be treated as articles or dab pages? dpotter 14:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Southwest is also tagged as a dab page. No thoughts yet about whether they should be dabs or stubs or both or something else. 14:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This one isn't worth fighting over. Just take off the {{disambig}} template and otherwise leave it alone, because none of the entries are really synonyms of Northwest, so it's not really a dab page. —Wahoofive (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at only those two, and the significant number of links to them, it seems to me that these both need to be Primary topic multi-stub pages, each with (disambiguation) pages for the rest. Most of the references don't appear to be to the ordinal direction, but rather to the regional variation, which is typical disambiguation fare. There's also a new AFD for Northwesterner today that wants redirection there. Heck, I'll do it, over the next day or so....

--William Allen Simpson 23:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

destroying history

There's a serious problem with lack of understanding of history merging!

Today, I worked on Photuris and Photuris (disambiguation). The original Photuris was a multi-stub page of about 20-30 lines and a picture and a see also and some categories, with a dozen or so line history. The "(disambiguation)" page was created with cut and paste instead of move (by Dalf), and the original was blanked to redirect there.

My obvious solution was to revert Photuris, and change "(disambiguation)" to redirect, preserving both histories without any problem.

Unfortunately, here's what Commander Keene wrote on my talk page:

You fixed up Photuris by doing a cut/paste move. Various edits were hidden/lost when you did that, violating the GFDL licence. I have performed a history merge so everyone gets credit for their work. Never perform a cut and paste move, it's that simple.--Commander Keane 05:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

All I did was revert the redirect and fix. Not a single edit was lost on either page. No cut and paste was involved.

So, I'm looking at Photuris and Photuris (disambiguation). Where's the history?

All I see at "Photuris (disambiguation)" is a 1 line "move" history.

All I see at "Photuris" is

• the 3 line history from the moved "(disambiguation)" page,
• followed by 1 line from my Photuris revert and edit "(restore Photuris disambiguation here, revised MoS:DP)",
• followed by 1 line from my "(disambiguation)" edit (which is why it is now a "#REDIRECT Photuris" on the Photuris page, not making any sense),
• followed by 1 line with my next edit on Photuris again (which only makes sense as the diff past the #REDIRECT),
• followed by Keane's move work.

All the original multi-stub page history is lost.

Before you think I don't know what I'm talking about or wonder why I should care, try Google.

Now, what's to be done?

--William Allen Simpson 07:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

My problem was that Photuris was where the articles Photuris (genus) and Photuris (protocol) were started. When Photuris was split into these two new articles, the history remianed at Photuris. To maintain GFDL I think that the full history of Photuris (genus) and Photuris (protocol) should not be hidden/lost at Photuris, but rather fully exposed at Talk:Photuris (genus)/Early history.

Talk a look at Talk:Photuris (protocol) and Talk:Photuris (genus). I was annoyed that you would carry out your dodgey revert rather than let an admin provide the best solution, given that it was obvious that I (an admin) was working through the list that contained the problem that was Photuris.--Commander Keane 07:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you did save some of the history somewhere! AFAICT, it was lost (nobody goes looking for history on another page's talk subpage). Indeed, that seems like a lot of work for little benefit, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Dodgy? Whenever a multi-stub page is split, the old history remains behind at the original page. It's neither "hidden" nor "lost".

The only "problem" was that the original splitter did it with cut and paste, instead of move. IMHO, this split should have been done as a Primary topic page, instead. But still, the original history remained in situ.

Now, the history is an incomprehensible muddle of alternating lines from two different pages. (heavy sigh) Well, I suppose that nobody else but me will look at it anyway.

--William Allen Simpson 08:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

When looking at the history of Photuris I can't see an incomprehensible muddle of alternating lines, since I did a near clean splice. What are you talking about?--Commander Keane 08:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Start at the first "(last)" and do the "newer edit" navigation. The splice is by date and time. So, it alternates between (prior to move) "(disambiguation)", "(disambiguation)", "(disambiguation)", my photuris, my "(disambiguation)" redirect, my photuris, your moved "(disambiguation)" copy of my redirect, then your copy of my most recent version of photuris. It's schizoid.

But it doesn't matter. Seems like I'm the only one who reads this stuff. I'll live.

--William Allen Simpson 08:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Disambiguation at Talk:Ravi Shankar

I have just initiated a discussion of disambiguation at Talk:Ravi Shankar. Although the immediate subject of the discussion is a particular article, I believe it touches upon the more general question of when an ambiguous title ought to point to a disambiguation page, and when it ought to point to the most article most likely to be intended. --BostonMA 21:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is definitely much broader than just Ravi Shankar. It extends to the very concpet of a primary topic, or main article or whatever it is we call it when there's a Topic disambiguation) page rather than just having the main name be the disambiguation page. I'd like to see that discussion happen here since it's not specific to Ravi Shankar. Other opinions? Tedernst | talk 21:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with having the discussion here. The reason why I began at Talk:Ravi Shankar is because I am fairly new, and Commander Keane suggested that the discussion happen at the article talk page. --BostonMA 22:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Images

Is there a general consensus with respect to whether or not to include images on dab pages? Referring specifically to corn and plasma but I'm sure there are others. -- Krash (Talk) 02:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There are others. Zephyr is particularly questionable because it seems to be a disambiguation page combined with a merged stub. I've also been wondering about this. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with an image or two to help decorate and elaborate on the entries of some of the lengthier disambig pages, especially if they're free-use images. As long as it doesn't get out of hand.. There are more important (and commonplace) disambig-page screwups. -Silence 02:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to think that it shouldn't be within the nature of a disambiguation page to be decorated. And it should be the primary goal of the articles themselves—not the text or images on the disambiguation page—to elaborate on the entries. Like overlinking, images could be considered needless clutter, confusing the purpose of the dab page. But if people like the images and/or see a valid need for them, I don't really care either way. Just looking for consistancy. -- Krash (Talk) 04:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Help me

I have two little problems with disambiguation project:

1. When disambiguating links, there are a lot of user and talk pages when using "what links here" which I have to skip. Is there an easy way to filter them?
2. Is there a semi automatic bot that can help? I'd like to go through all disambig pages and make sure that do confirm to MoS. I had a random look and many of them dont.

Mahanchian 21:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

For (1): a good solution would be a namespace filter (as found in "my contributions"). I have just submitted a bug report requesting this feature. If you would like the feature, I recommend that you vote for it.

For (2): there is a bot to help with link repair (m:Solve_disambiguation.py). However, there isn't a bot to help with page style - because it would be rather complicated.--Commander Keane 01:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm now using WP:AWB which does both jobs! Mahanchian 22:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Severn (disambiguation)

Could someone from the Wiki Dab Project take a look at this page. I fixed it but I think I went overboard on the number of links. I really need a second opinion. If it's wrong, please make it right (even if you have to take a hatchet to it).
(Side note: I've been working informally for this project, but after one of my edits was reverted and deemed "ridiculous" by the reverting editor — this in spite of the fact that I had closely adhered to the rules at Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) — I've had second thoughts. Since I prefer a certain measure of harmony when editing, I won't be actively fixing any more disambiguation pages; except perhaps for the odd one here and there.)
-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 00:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)  Sorry for the rant.

It appears to look pretty good - I wouldn't say you went overboard on the number of links, there are just a lot of relevant links! They seem to be well organized. The only thing I'm not sure about is the rivers section - since Severn River is a disambiguation page, I don't know if it should stick to what is there now (linking to the disambiguation page) or if all the rivers on the Severn River disambiguation page should also be listed on this page. It seems like that might be rather redundant, but I'm not sure how linking to a disambiguation page from another disambiguation page goes over. -- Natalya 03:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• The Severn River dab page is a thorny issue. I suppose there would be nothing wrong with redundant entries; but there would be the problem of maintaining them on two different dab pages (and what if other "Severn Rivers" suddenly turn up — or maybe a few dry up because of global warming [!] ).
  -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 03:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Multiple pages with differently capitalised names

I just came across a pair of articles, Lingua franca and Lingua Franca, which are on totally different topics but have near identical titles (the latter is an obscure and apparently short-lived magazine, the former is the better-known linguistic concept). What is the general feeling on such article pairs? Is it better to leave them be (pointing to each other using dab templates) or disambiguate them in the same way as if the titles were actually identical (i.e. make a dab page or move one to a dab title, in this case Lingua Franca (magazine))?

If the general feeling is that it should be moved, then that's what I'll do, else Talk:Lingua Franca (which was redirected at the same time the parent page was moved) should be RfD'd. Hairy Dude 03:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I recommend maintaining the current situation - there is no need for added complexity. I deleted Talk:Lingua Franca, as the redirect was incorrect--Commander Keane 05:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope you didn't lose any significant edit history there... :/ I think I've since come across another example of exactly the same, but it seems to have disappeared from my history. If I find it again I'll let you know. Hairy Dude 07:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I am careful with page histories, in this case there was only ever one edit - the erroneous redirect.--Commander Keane 09:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Using parentheses to explain, rather than disambiguate and distinguish, article titles?

Did I miss some memo or policy proposal or other thing where it suddenly became OK to use parentheses to explain what an article is about even when there's no other article title that could be confused with the article in question? Am I the only one to whom this seems a little bizarre? Is there some new trend starting that will lead to nigger being moved to nigger (term), Zionist Occupation Government to Zionist Occupation Government (fictional organization)?!

I am referring to Islamofascism (term)—which Islamofascism is a mere redirect to. The page seems too embroiled in POV disputes and unreasonable extremist disagreements (e.g. "I don't think this page should be moved to Islamofascism because I think it should be deleted") to understand how absurd, arbitrarily inconsistent, and inconvenient it is to have a non-parenthesis page redirect to a parenthesis page with the same name (rather than the other way around), so I've come here hoping for some illumination and wisdom on the matter, after what a great success my last plea for clarification/aid here was (the discussion of malplaced disambig pages that led to the creation of the beautiful Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages). So, am I missing something here, or what? -Silence 22:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Another example I found of this strange practice seems to be at property (ownership right), which is redirected to from property. However, the critical differnce between this and Islamofascism is that there are other articles with the name "property" that could be confused with this article, as shown by property (disambiguation), so while it's still a mistake either way, there are two ways to solve the mistake if there's a disambig page: either move property (ownership right) to property (if its noteworthy enough), or move property (disambiguation) there (in which case this is an issue of malplaced disambiguation pages). Depends on how noteworthy and central the legal meaning is vs. other possible meanings. -Silence 16:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not ideal, but until monkeys learn to type we are stuck with it. It's very hard to fix in a dynamic place like Wikipedia. Even something as simple as Malplaced dabs has 5 created every day, 7 days a week.--Commander Keane 17:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Er? I really don't understand. Why is this any more hard to fix than any other error on Wikipedia? I've only seen 3 or 4 pages that use parentheses like this in my entire time on Wikipedia, out of many, many thousands of articles. It's not in any way a rampant issue (though it could become one if we don't nip it in the bud with articles like this before the practice spreads virally!), like the malplaced disambig pages are. And my problem isn't with the manual labor of moving the pages (I can put in a Requested Move or ask an admin if I need a page moved to overwrite a redirect) so much as with responding to editors on Talk:Islamofascism (term) (and anywhere else this crops up in the future) who claim that the added parenthetical is the preferred way to handle such an article. It's at best inconsistent, at worst outright hypocritical, considering that no other article about a term feels the need to specify this with "(term)" in its title except for disambiguation purposes. -Silence 17:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is possible to do, I'm probably still a little negative from the disgusting growth rate at Malplaced dabs. Now I'll add something constructive. Some places (for example Australian Wikipedians) has descided that all places will automatically have a term in parentheses. For example Ballarat, Cairns etc. I'm sure they have some good reasons, and won't appreciate someone changing the format. It's difficult to clean these things up if you are fighting consensus.--Commander Keane 18:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

5 March 2006 #1 Help request

Am a new contributor. Am trying to disambiguate references to Crawford Castle. I wrote the article on Crawford Castle, however, there is a ship named Crawford Castle referred to in a Henry Blogg and another building named Crawford Castle in the Spetisbury article. Thanks (Lawnmowerman 03:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Repaired. See those pgs, & the crucial element of Dab'n: connecting the common name for the topics to each of them, in this case with a ToP Dab & Crawford Castle (disambiguation).
--Jerzy•t 01:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

5 March 2006 #2 Help request

Someone may want to check my additions to the disabiguation page for Crawford --Lawnmowerman 03:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Done.
--Jerzy•t 02:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Root pages

I think that this project should take note of the proposed policy on Wikipedia:Root pages. The spartan disambiguation style promulgated by MoS:DP works very well to route incoming links and searches, but discourages comprehensive treatment of ambiguous terms. Root pages are quite the opposite. --Smack (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Homonymdis

I just found some pages using this template, which seems to be rather redundant to just {{disambig}}. Or is there any use for this that I am overlooking? Kusma (討論) 12:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The MoS only allows one dab template: {{disambig}}. So this one should be deleted. They can use the category if they think it is useful, but I don't think it is.--Commander Keane 13:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that all the pages with {{TLAdisambig}} or other templates should be changed to {{disambig}}? Mahanchian 22:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Commander Keane 23:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You might consider adding Category:Ambiguous three-letter acronyms though, if you think it's useful.--Commander Keane 00:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleting dab pages

What is the process to delete dab pages? Is there any specific policy? Or is it similar to any other page? This page AAK for example has only three external links and one red link, so why should it exist? Mahanchian 22:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No special procedure exists. Wikipedia:Deletion policy applies (WP:CSD, WP:PROD, WP:AfD). However, in this case I can see a reason for the page - the articles just haven't been created yet.--Commander Keane 00:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that the page should remain? MoS prescribes that external links should only be used exceptionally on dab pages therefore the external links must be removed which mean a page with only one red link will remain that I don't think will be categorised as a dab page. What's the benefits o having such a page at all? Mahanchian 18:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I probably would have written three stub articles (using the external links given) - that's why I thought the dab should remain. However, now I'm wondering if the entries are relevant. Does someone search for All About Kids via AAK? Anyhow, that was my reasoning.--Commander Keane 19:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Lattice

I found Lattice on Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. I trimmed it mercilessly to conform to MoS:DP. Then someone decided that it should be an article rather than a disambig. I raised the question on the talk page, got a couple of replies that didn't resolve anything, followed by silence. What to do? --Smack (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The page seems to be dab. See my comments on Talk:Lattice#Page_organization. Mahanchian 20:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Massive red linking on disambiguation pages of abbreviations

Is there an consensus as to deleting/keeping the incredible number of redlinked articles on disambiguation pages of abbreviations? Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup has recently recieved a lovely number of these such pages, and it would be good to know if there are any general guidelines in cases as drastic as these. I would say keep the ones that could have an article written about them as per usual, but there are so many that even then it may be hard to tell (though I'd much rather do that then leave them all in). And on AED (disambiguation) as an example (though there are many more), 25+ redlinked kings of various places? They don't seem to even belong in List of people by name, since there are no articles on them. Is it reasonable to remove all the links that are obscure people/organizations? -- Natalya 00:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Standards of notability always apply, but let's not get into a crusade against redlinks. They've acquired a stigma recently, probably because of their increasing rarity, but there's really nothing wrong with them. --Smack (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I like redlinks - if the redlinked article is going to be created eventually. For these kings I'm not sure if they will be each get an article - best to ask an expert. Whether or not these kings were all known as "Aen" and should be on the dab page is also a mystery. But redlinks are useful. As in the AAK case above, two redlinks were turned into articles.--Commander Keane 06:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's likely enough for someone to link to a "King [[Aen]]" - in the event that anyone would mention one of them in the first place. --Smack (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Unless they're absolutely non-notable, they should be good to hang out on the pages, and I'll just see about making articles for some of them. Thanks, everyone, for other perspectives! -- Natalya 11:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Repairing links to Director

I've been repairing a few of the links to Director (a disambiguation page with a lot of links to it), but a problem I've found along the way is that for many articles I'm unsure what to repair them to. For example, Foire Brayonne is a music festival in France, and the link to director refers to the director of the festival. I can't find a suitable article to link to for this, and several others. Any suggestions? Thenugga | talk 14:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, looks like someone's created a Festival director stub - well that's one solution. Cheers for that. Thenugga | talk 15:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You might get more bites for this question at WT:DPL. --Commander Keane 18:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

enquiry about disambiguation in connection with Black Patch or Black Patch Park

Can you assist with resolving confusion between Black Patch and Black Patch park. It seems to me and others with whom i have spoken about these two articles that it would make things a lot lot more straightforward if the two were combined under the heading "Black Patch Park". I say this becasue that title is rarer and therefore less ambiguous than "Black Patch" which occurs (as you'll see if you google 'Black Patch"). Can you establish who is the main author of Black Patch so that I can suggest this? The person who is the local history expert and who i thought had written most of it is not the author (Ted Rudge) and Ted agrees with my proposal. Can you help?Sibadd 21:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Since Black Patch Park and Black Patch seem to be about the same thing, I have added merge tags to both pages. The discussion about merging can continue on Black Patch Park's talk page.

Also, for the most part, on Wikipedia there is no "main author" of an article. The best place to bring up questions or suggestions about an article is on the talk page of the article, where all contributing authors can discuss it. -- Natalya 01:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)