Talk:Stacey

Proposed merger

I found a reference to "Gymnast Stacey", a doll, and I did a search here but found nothing. Okay, I could use a search engine, now that I think of it, but what I did end up finding revealed some deficiencies in Wikipedia.

There is nothing under "Stacy" telling you to come here if the spelling is different. The alternate spellings of Staci and Stacie aren't dealt with in a convenient way.

The doll is actually Stacie Roberts. I did know it was a Barbie-related doll, but I had to go to the Barbie article to find her.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

this appears to have been discussed before in an article for deletion, but why do we have a DAB page that acts as a search engine? i think that a page for the name Stacey should include variant forms (merge with stacy), and have links ONLY to articles or sections about things/people named stacy/ey/i, not people known by stacy+last name (or first name+stacy). so a pop star that was famous as "stacy" would be listed, as well as monarchs, "queen stacy". a good reason for this is: if we did this with this relatively less popular name, it would make sense to also do this for all first names, which in the case of say, Michael, or Mohammad would be useless and impossible to maintain. if a person is trying to find an article on a particular stacy, they can use the search function.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said above, I had difficulty finding a Stacey whose name I didn't know how to spell. I've combined the different spellings and when I can figure out the best way to do it, I'm going to divide up the people into categories because right now that's a very long list.

There must be some other place you can discuss this because it looks like you're challenging a Wikipedia official policy. Then again, I could have done this wrong.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you were right and I was wrong.[1]Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

its ok. i image your issue comes up a whole lot. i am not utterly opposed to the idea of all staceys being here, but it seems inconsistent, considering some names. But, maybe for more unusual names, we should have more flexibility. in fact, i just edited a random page I found for the greek name Stavros, where i left all the links for people with either the surname or the given name. I know its against policy, but maybe it needs to be modified for some cases. anyway, thanks for the give and take here, its refreshing to have this and not the heated exchanges that sometimes dominate. gives me hope for WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the policy (I was told what I did was a common error), and it may be that to do what Wikipedia wants I have to undo what I did before, but I'm waiting on someone to tell me just how to solve my problem.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going off my conversation with Vchimpanzee at WP:VPP#Disambiguation is not a search engine, here is what I would suggest:

It makes sense to have one given name page for both Stacy and Stacey, since they're pretty much the same name and, as mentioned above, it's easy to be unsure whether you're looking for a Stacy Jones or a Stacey Jones. Since it appears that there are more Stacys than Staceys, I suggest listing all the people named Stacy or Stacey, along with all the information about the name, at Stacy (given name).
Then I suggest keeping a regular disambiguation page at Stacy, which would list the things that could be referred to as just "Stacy" (which looks like it would mean: the places, the Atari computer, the film, and also Stacy (singer), who should be on both the dab page and the given name page; it seems unlikely that someone would look for the shoe company as just "Stacy"). The disambiguation page would link to Stacy (given name) as well.
Then Stacey should be redirected to Stacy, since the spellings are combined. If any other meanings for "Stacey" come up besides the given name, those meanings can be added to the disambiguation page.
If this sounds like a good solution to you, here are the exact steps I think you should take (if you would like me to do it myself, I can probably get to it tomorrow): 1. Create a new article at Stacy (given name). Into the new page, cut-and-paste the name information from Stacey, and the list of all the people named either "Stacy" or "Stacey". Save that article. 2. Redirect Stacey to Stacy (by replacing the text of Stacey with #REDIRECT [[Stacy]]. 3. Remove the list of people from Stacy (except for the singer), and replace the list with a link to Stacy (given name). Clean up the categories to remove the name-specific ones. Propaniac (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

makes sense from my understanding of how to best structure DABS, though i would not call myself an expert. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to figure all this out or do it today, but I'll try it tomorrow. Let's not forget there are people named Staci and Stacie, which is how all this began in the first place. But thanks for all your help.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I have time today, I'll do what Propaniac and Mercurywoodrose said and they can check to see if I did it right. I did what I did because the Stacey article is so short and short articles seem to be frowned on. But apparently Wikipedia has rules that make short articles a better option in some situations.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for not getting back to this sooner; I was unexpectedly busy yesterday.) There's definitely no blanket rule or view that short articles are a bad thing; when it comes to disambiguation pages, the page should be exactly as long as is needed to link to the relevant articles, and no longer. But when you have two disambiguation pages for terms that are likely to be confused, like the different spellings of "Stacey", it generally makes sense to combine them onto one page. Let me know if you need more help. Propaniac (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I realized there was a new problem. A couple of them, actually. There are people with the last name Stacey, and there's currently no link to Stacy from Stacy (given name). I'm not sure I want to do any more today as I've got a bunch of stuff left to do. Thanks everyone for your help, including Carlossuarez46.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the redirect from Stacey to go to the disambiguation page at Stacy; that way, there's no need for a link to Stacy from Stacy (given name), because the only reasonable way to get to the given name page is by choosing it from the disambiguation page.

As for people with the last name Stacey/Stacy, if there are just a few of them, they can be listed at Stacy; if there are a lot of them, a Stacy (surname) page can be created just like the given name page.

The rearranged pages look fine, good job :) Propaniac (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. With all that I had to do, it's inevitable I would have gotten at least one thing wrong.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still have to divide up all those names.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]