Talk:Tiamat (disambiguation)

POV?

DreamGuy you have been reverting my work without even discussing it. Please cite references or sources relating to your "rv" comments in the article's history.--AI 23:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The claim that the Sumerians believed in a heavenly body called Tiamat is complete nonsense. A number of people already had this discussion with you on the main Tiamat talk page, so don't you dare try to claim that no discussion happened. The only source you have who believes that what you put into this article is factual is a solitary author who has no training in the field and is thoroughly discredited by all experts in both astronomy and archeology. We can either leave it out as nonnotable or follow the guidelines as decribed in the NPOV policy statement on pseudoscience and mention it while pointing out that mainstream experts ridicule the idea. We absolutely will not have a sentence here supporting the claims of a crank author as if it were fact. DreamGuy 04:47, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Your first 3 sentences are irrelevant because they are not factual.
Your fourth sentence: There are more choices than the two which you dictate. Where is your "mainstream expert" citation.
This is not a scientific journal, this is an encyclopedia.

--AI 19:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty obnoxious for you to talk about something being factual or not when you were putting outright false claims in these articles as if they were true. ALL of my sentences above are completely factual. There was a discussion (see sentence two) and to claim that that statement isn't factual is an outright lie, and you know it. For any outside viewers, see Talk:Tiamat for proof of User:AI's recent involvement in the discussion he now falsely claims never happened. This encyclopedia, as already pointed out to you above with a direct link, has as an official policy that pseudoscience must be labeled as such. Zecharia Sitchin is clearly considered to be some of the more outrageous pseudoscience out there. See his article, as well as the links there, to more than adequately prove that he is rejected by scientists as a nutball. At this point you would have to be in complete denial to try to make the claims that you do. DreamGuy 08:20, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

That discussion was not fully resolved and the discussion on the disambig page here is about having Tiamat (Planet) in the disambig page which has nothing really to do with the Tiamat article. Your POV prevents even a slight mention of this aspect of Sumerian mythology anywhere near any Tiamat articles.--AI 28 June 2005 19:26 (UTC)

While, for once, I must heartily agree with you, DreamGuy, on the whole issue of Sitchin's credibility, I do not think that you simply making a statement and pointing to websties where others make such statements is "more than adequately prov[ing]" those statments. elvenscout742 30 June 2005 21:49 (UTC)

Content moved

I have moved the numerous role playing referances to their own section in the Tiamat article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrwuggs (talk • contribs) 18:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I have restored the dab information here. -- JHunterJ 18:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Role playing info belongs in one simple section

This disambig page is a mess. Red links, tons of referances all to the same concept of the D&D Tiamat appearing in other video games as a dragon; these need to be on the Tiamat page. Clearly all roleplaying referances stem from the D&D version. They are multiheaded, evil dragons. This kind of information genrally appears as an "In popular culture" or in literature" sort of section. Why it is on a disambiguation page is beyond me. Mrwuggs 18:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the merge debate was do not merge. -- JHunterJ 20:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the other mystery editor mentioned in this discussion. Mrwuggs 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Oppose -- ignorance of the differences of the various monsters (and ships, and bands) name Tiamat does not mean they don't exist. User:Mrwuggs appears to be trying to get more exposure for Tiamat (planet) by eliminating acknowledgement of other Tiamat disambiguations. -- JHunterJ 18:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- The acknowledgement of Tiamat as a monster in gaming should be part of one In popular culture section on the Tiamat page. Many other pages have this kind of section. Having such a section is standard wikipedia procedure. I also have proposed that the article on the D&D Tiamat be merged into the main article. If neither are merged into Tiamat, the redundant disambiguation items should at the very least be merged into the D&D Tiamat as a section called "Referances in other role playing games." -- Mrwuggs 19:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per JHunterJ.--Robbstrd 20:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, there are a couple of different Tiamats here, so leave the disambig page. You can mention that there are other Tiamats based on the original in the deity's page, but putting putting all the different Tiamats in there will detract from the scope of that article. -- VederJuda 21:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose per above. Also, one might look into whether this Mrwuggs might be the editor who was banned for repeated POV and other violations related to these fringe theories. I haven;t the time to look into it myself, but the methods seem similar to the person I argued with up top here on this talk page. DreamGuy 23:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Other options

Another idea would be to at least merge the band into the main Tiamat article and putting the multi-headed gaming stuff together. JHunterJ's accusation of personal bias is unfounded. I am trying to eliminate the need for a redundant and messy disambiguation page, also a standard wikipedia procedure. Anyhow, whether the planet is referanced here or on the Tiamat page makes little differance concerning exposure. Also, it is not as if the various video and role playing Tiamats arose independantly of the larger association with dragons, which is entirly based in the D&D concept. No pervious referance to Tiamat as a dragon ever existed. At the very least, there should be a section on the Tiamat page called Tiamat as a dragon explaining that no ancient texts ever even implied an association with them. The D&D idea is most likely grounded in the fact the the mother goddess Tiamat created monsters with which to battle the gods. Hence, she was recast as the mother of all dragons. Anyone interested in seeing the beginings of the section I propose can look at the edit JHunterJ reverted.

If we truely must keep this disambiguation page, a couple of things need to be done:

The red links should be fixed.
The gaming referances should be in one section, the music in another, and the planet in a third.

Mrwuggs 19:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do these things need to be done? Please see WP:MOSDAB; redlinks are acceptable (and earlier editor Harmil objected to having no link at the beginning of the line), and the list is too short to need sections. -- JHunterJ 19:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is why the page was changed in the first place. The original version [1] had some minor problems that could have been fixed without adding piles of redlinks. Simply returning to the old version would seem to be preferable to most of the "solutions" being proposed. -Harmil 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But then you reverted my changes when I fixed the minor problems without the redlinks. -- JHunterJ 22:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. you made this edit: [2] and I haven't touched the page since. Shall we return there? -Harmil 05:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, I think that this edit: [3] is the one that has caused so much subsequent consternation. If we return to the edit before it, I think we could have a reasonable conversation about any subsequent changes and how they relate to the disambiguation guidelines (such as placing links as early in a disambiguation entry as possible, which the current edit seems to go out of its way to avoid). -Harmil 05:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I was referring to this edit: [4], which you reverted in the link you posted. Please read the fuller descriptions at WP:MOSDAB instead of the summary at WP:D (which I did at least align with MOSDAB last night). In particular, this example:

Flibbygibby may refer to:

Flibbygibby (architecture), a flamingo motif used on cornices
Flibbygibby, a type of noodle

If the thing being referred to isn't the article's subject, it doesn't make sense to put it first. "Tiamat may refer to Disgaea" isn't right; Tiamat is a gun in the Disgaea game, not the Disgaea game itself. After you reverted my initial edit, I brought up the point on your Talk page, but that got no response then, so I proceeded with the changes (to fix the other variations from the guidelines).

Finally, this edit: [5] is the one that caused the current consternation. -- JHunterJ 09:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My question still stands. Shall we return to your version that I cited, and that I think generally met with little resistance, or are you now too married to subsequent edits? Speaking of which, you site WP:MOSDAB which says, "Try to link to the disambiguated page with the first word in the line." I see no such effort in the current version, and in fact, a slight predisposition to the contrary. In some cases, nothing reasonable can be done to re-phrase an entry, I'll admit, but that's not what's going on here. Disambiguation isn't hard to get. It's simply a list of links with short descriptive text. We're not trying to write about these topics, just give people enough information to find the page they were looking for. -Harmil 18:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response still stands. How about we stick with the current version and continue to improve it, or are you too married to earlier edits? How do you propose to reword "Tiamat may refer to Tiamat, a planet in The Snow Queen (novel)" so that there is a link right after "to" and still have it make sense? I haven't read the book, but I'm assuming that Tiamat isn't the queen. The only way I could find to do so was to redlink Tiamat (Snow Queen), but that proved unpopular as well. (Don't forget WP:IGNORE and WP:DUH!.) -- JHunterJ 18:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titania

Can somebody more knowledgable fix the current, truncated entry for a character named Titania (Fire Emblem), allegedly a/k/a Tiamat? The article it currently links to doesn't mention anything about anybody called Tiamat!--Orange Mike 21:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a translation note to the linked article (taken from the Japanese WP):

Tiamat (ティアマト tiamato^?) -- JHunterJ 23:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]