Talk:Star (disambiguation)

Talk

I still fail to get the point whenever people remove information from a disambiguation page. The star (disambiguation) page is a case in point. I thought the whole idea was to provide those seeking knowledge with all the information there is about a particular subject, with all the different uses of a term. While including a rather obscure Student Action For Refugees (STAR), which I think is perfectly okay, deleting Pamela Anderson's novel Star (novel) and the Star of David (referred to by User:Ant as "redundant") is something I just don't understand.

Could those of you who also think that those two occurrences should not be included here please comment on their removal? <K F> 11:21, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think the point of a disambiguation page is to direct readers to their desired article. When someone types in "Star" do you think they were looking for "Star of David"? I don't think so, that search is too general (Just because David Beckham is a "star" footballer, he shouldn't be on this dab). Dab pages are not here to provide a definition for everything under the sun, just to get you to your article. On the Anderson novel, some believe that red links (links to artciles that don't exist yet) shouldn't go on a dab page. Personally I don't mind having Star (novel). --Commander Keane 15:04, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Merge it. its just a dab page that doent say that its a dab page, we need all the links on one page. the dab page. merge one into the other, I dont care which - jedi of redwall

I personally think that someone looking for Star of David may well come to this page - many people who read encyclopedias often don't know the precise names of what they are looking for and have to go to similar articles to narrow it down. Hence the existence of the principle of cross-referencing and blue-linking. And a DAB page is the epitome of such cross-referencing. So, yes, I believe things like Red Star (major cultural symbol) and Pentagram (which leads onto religious versions thereof) are necessarily included here. Especially something like Pentagram, which is a word people will recognize once they see it, but various people I've discussed Wicca (or devil worship!) with throughout my life simply refer to it as "that star in a circle"! And no, that does not make them stupid – it simply means that the encyclopedia has to provide a way for them to get to the article they're looking for. Especially in cases where "star" is part of the name of the article, and especially in disambiguating notions such as the symbolic "star (polygon)" from the geometric "star polygon".BigSteve (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing work

Thanks for the edits, Keane -- this is really starting to look good!

I renamed some of the radio station names to their call signs; I checked to make sure there were no other links to the previous red-linked titles. Oh, and the former WMSR linked to a different radio station that's not a "Star"; the -FM suffix is part of the correct station's official call sign, per the FCC. Note there's some guidelines on station naming at Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations#Article title, if it comes up in the future (there are many more radio stations named "Star" out there).

Should The Star redirect here, or does it merit its own page? Either way, we need to reorganize to prevent duplication. Let me know what you think. — Catherine\^talk 15:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes when I bring a dab up to MoS standards I forget to actually see if the entries belong there. This happened with The Star. Is someone going to type in "The Star" and expect to find The Indianapolis Star? I don't think so, but I'd like some other opinions. On another note, I think The Star should remain as a separate dab, there are about 5 notable articles. However, on this article, the link to The Star should be moved down the bottom. --Commander Keane 05:55, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

People named "Star"?

Should this page include people named "Star" or "Starr", i.e. Kenneth Starr, Patrick Star? Just a thought.--Atlantima 00:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starr (surname) — Swpb^talk.edits 19:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, but where is 'Star (given name)'? I remember seeing some people on the internet who were called Star. And I think at least one is a celebrity. Though of course all celebrities are not in wikipedia. 82.141.116.182 (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And where is Patrick Star? He has his own article, but is not listed here. And is it really so that there no person with one r? Because the Starr page only contains persons with two r. 82.141.116.182 (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... just found one with Google: Star Jones who has her own article here. These kind of names are normally listed in disambiguation pages, so why not this time? 82.141.116.182 (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge from The Star

I've added a tag to The Star, proposing that it be merged into here. Some of the information is duplicated, some isn't. I think it makes sense to keep them all together and redirect that here. Anyone have any objections to me doing that? - N (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it, then sort this list. It's in a random order at the moment (a geeky order too, technology is at the top, the important Star newspapers are at the bottom!). I'd suggest a one line mention of star, then everything else in sections. The sections should be sorted A-Z. Similar sections should be grouped, e.g. all categories to do with media, newspapers, TV, etc should become subcategories (===) of a ==Media=- category). Anything excessive should be trimmed. A dab page is to get people to their destination asap, it's not for listing everything under the... erm... sun. --kingboyk 08:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be merged - if people search for "THE Star", they're not looking for information on STARS. They're looking for things which are specifically called "The Star" - films, stories, whatever. Yes, some information is duplicated, but that should be no reason to merge them. I realize that they seem similar, but they're not, and merging them will make it more difficult for a user to find what he's looking for. It might be better to just add a link at the top, saying "for other uses, see 'The Star' or 'STAR'". Esn 05:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge that "the star" has a more specific meaning and there is no reason to make people looking for one of those uses to look through this huge list --T-rex 19:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tag. I'm fairly indifferent about this now, and there's clearly no consensus to merge. - Nzd (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of the article

Some links are italized while others ain't. Can any one clarify?--Anupam Srivastava 12:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anupamsr. You can find a list of things that should be italicized in the Manual of Style. They're usually used for titles of published works, like books, albums and newspapers. - Nzd (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing stars

Would it be worth adding a link to the page on Phosphenes, under the science section? I was looking for more info on this condition, but only knew it as "seeing stars". Perhaps the expression is too general to be included on the disambiguation? Thanks, Extenebris 14:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid it's too general. The purpose of disambiguation pages is to navigate readers to articles on all identically called entities (in this case, "(a) star"), but not to those which merely include or mention the word "star" in the title.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki links

I think it makes no sense to make interwiki links according to the meaning (or rather one of the meanings) of the word. Different meanings have different translations. The Estonian for star in astronomy is täht, for a famous person is staar (or täht), for the ship Star it is Star. The Russian for star is zvezda. But there is a journal Zvezda, and this is translated Zvezda in both Estonian and English. The situation I found was that this page linked to the Estonian disambiguation page et:Star (täpsustus) and so did the Russian disambiguation page for zvezda. This is nonsense and untenable. And so far we try to link the disambiguation pages according to the meaning such a mess is unevitable. So please think it through and revert your revert. Andres 02:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed 23 interwiki links. I doubt very much that you could know for a fact that the linked article in every single one of these languages was misdirected and unhelpful. Even if a particular interwiki link could link to a more accurate article, it should be retargeted, not removed entirely. If you have a problem with the fact that interlanguage links are by nature not always precise matches, bring it up on Help:Interlanguage links or at meta. — Swpb^talk.edits 14:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I could know because they were chosen by the meaning rather than the form. I don't think that retargeting is my duty when I remove bad links but I could do that if you promise that you don't revert because I don't want to work of no use.

It is clear that interwiki links are not entirely precise but they must not generate mess as it is the case here. Andres 05:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I made the interwiki links consistent throughout the wikis. Please don't revert. Andres 06:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak 23 languages? No? Then stop removing potentially helpful links and replacing them with nothing. I am adding back in the links you removed - please do not remove them again unless you have some seriously good reasoning for each one you remove. — Swpb^talk.edits 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand most of the languages we had interwikis here to, and for the remaining, I found the right links from indirect considerations. As I said, I made the links consistent throughout the wikis. I have good reasons for removing the links: adding inconsistent links will cause a hopeless mess due to the bots' actions. Andres 16:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disambiguation page for the four letters word "star". It means that, in this page, the meaning of this word is ambiguous: it may be a city, a movie star... The interwiki must link to the disambiguation page for the four letters word "star" in other language. Otherwise interwikis becomes completely mangled. See for instance Bank (disambiguation) interwiki: de:Bank (Begriffsklärung) is a disamb for the same word, eo:Benko is a disamb for words related with geology, ro:Bancă (dezambiguizare) is a disamb page for another word, which has nothing to do with geology... Marc Mongenet (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, also, as the article starts: A star is a luminous cosmic body. Star in finnish language is a foreign proper name, as in most other languages than english. 85.217.35.88 (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A star is...; not Star is.... Richard 08:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Star" as a euphemism?

Would it be appropriate to include a link referencing "star" as a euphemism for a word I won't repeat here? (For said euphemism being used, see the Rolling Stones song "Star Star" or the REM song "Star Me Kitten". 98.71.153.203 (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star (classification)

Star (classification) is a fairly lengthy article. Is there a particular reason why it's not linked from this disambiguation article? --τις (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy cleanup

As this is a disambiguation article, I can't really question the number of articles that have been cleared out in the past 48 hours. Except to say that it has not been done consistently. A strict disambiguation article for 'star' should only contain articles of the form star (unique identifier) and nothing else. It is not reasonable to keep some articles whose names happen to begin with the word Star and discard others, seemingly on a whim. Either do it properly or don't do it at all. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been done properly, not on a "whim". "A strict disambiguation article for 'star' should only contain articles of the form star (unique identifier) and nothing else." Where did you get that from? And why are you violating even that fake criterion with things as egregious as Star polygons in art and culture? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "seemingly on a whim" was in reference to the choice of what should stay and what should go, with no imputation about your good faith in doing it. My challenge is that you deleted too little, not too much.

The policy is stated at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. If strictly applied, every entry that is not of the form star (unique identifier) should be removed, but wp:think of the reader also applies.

The status of books, songs etc called star is maybe ambiguous: I would retain. (But not something like wish upon a star, see next main point.)
Likewise 'STAR' as an acronym.
Ditto places called Star (like 'Star, Idaho' which but for convention might have been called 'Star (Idaho)').
But not HMS Star or USS Star because no reasonable visitor would expect to find them in a generic article called 'Star'

Articles that are currently included only because they begin with (or worse still, only contain) the word 'star' should not be included, they are covered in the See Also with the All pages with titles beginning with Star and All pages with titles containing star templates. (IMO, it would be helpful in such a long list to put these at the top of the article, not the bottom where it is long past the wp:TLDR point.)

I did not add Star polygons in art and culture and it does not qualify to be in this article.
I see however that it was I who added Star of Life, and of course that one doesn't qualify either.

Is that helpful? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Updated to add ref to Star of Life --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But not HMS Star or USS Star because no reasonable visitor would expect to find them in a generic article called 'Star' -- really? Ships are often referenced by name only without the naval letters. older ≠ wiser 15:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but would anybody search Wikipedia or write a wikilink with just the word 'Star' and expect to find the ship? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, if they know don't remember the naval prefix. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 18:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Sorry, not credible.

But to meet half-way, how about creating an article called Star (ship) that list ships called Star? With a see also to Starship? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

100% seriously. I can't remember off the top of my head if the Titanic was an RMS or an HMS, or something else. If you want to remove ships from dabs, you're going to have to get consensus on the guideline talk, and well, I don't see that happening to say the least. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 18:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic is the wp:common name, so it is a special case. (btw, it was owned by the White Star Line!). Anyway, per next, I may have been overstating the case. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Just because the example used happens to cite three entries (Mercury (element), Mercury (planet) and Mercury (mythology)) in that format doesn't mean it's policy. In fact, if you look at Mercury (disambiguation), you'll find lots of entries that aren't, including HMS Mercury, USS Mercury, Ferranti Mercury, Mercury Browser, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... perhaps I am. I've recently had a bruising encounter at talk:Canonical#Not a dab page on just this topic, which was really only resolved by turning it into a wp:broad concept article. I was persuaded that it was not a valid dab page. I can certainly see the logic that when a disambiguation article ends up listing every article on Wikipedia that could possibly be related, it becomes useless. It is no longer a page to put you back on the right track because somebody has wlinked an ambiguous term, it is just another white pages – and it seems to that this is what had happened to this (Star) article. It is better that it was – but we could wp:think of the reader even more. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dab page X should list everything that could reasonably be called X (but not an X). So ships are valid (since they are routinely referred to without the USS, SS, RMS), as are rivers, oceans, companies, newspapers, etc. This list's longer than average, but that's not a big deal. As far as I can see, nearly all the entries currently here are acceptable (Pyrotechnic star may be a bit borderline, and I don't think Star (polygon) is legit - it's a star, but so's the Sun). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting into the rest of your response, I consider your comment on Star (polygon) to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of disambiguation articles.

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic.
— Wikipedia:Disambiguation

Every article of the form star (unique identifier) must be resolvable here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Split out Stars

This dab page is huge, with over 270 links. About 80 of them are for the plural "Stars". Normally, we keep the singular and the plural disambiguated at the same title. However, there's very little overlap between the two here. Apart from a handful of entries (like Star (glyph) or Star), almost all the entries are proper nouns, which are either only called "Star" (like Star (Bryan Adams song) or are only referred to as "Stars" (like Stars (Australian band)). By mixing together the two sets we're doing a disservice to readers, so I'm proposing a split. – Uanfala (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sound reasoning; I support. Might want to leave a hatnote on each dab though. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 14:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the split now: we've got Star (disambiguation) and Stars (disambiguation). I'm not sure of the best way to cross-link to the two pages: hatnotes? "see also" entries? Also, the main dab is now about a third smaller. I've shaved off a few of the more obviously no longer needed headings, though there's still some scope for further simplification of the structure if anyone's interested in that. – Uanfala (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]