Talk:Wick

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Anthroponymy

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles

As a disambig

This may need to become a diambiguation page. Anyone agree? Kushboy 02:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a great place for a disambig. Anyone wishing for information on a person with the surname "Wick" will presumably use the first name. As for the geographical locations, they too can be found easily by entering other information. The article "wick" should be about "wicks", with stray readers directed to a proper disambiguation page, which should be located at Wick (disambigutation). Otherwise, this same treatment could be given to innumerable articles whose subject also happens to be a surname and geographical location. See, for instance, [[quill]. Bill Oaf 04:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wick's Theorem

This page may not be a proper disambiguation page, but it seems to be one de facto. Would it be okay if I included a link to Wick's Theorem in statistics/mathematics? This could of course later be included in a proper disambiguation page, if anyone cares to make one. 192.16.184.140 (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you say it isn't a proper disambiguation page, it looks perfectly proper to me. As for adding a link to Wick's theorem it seems to be a partial title match which should not be added. --Muhandes (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]