Talk:Ob

See also links[edit]

I still think links to specific DAB pages like these are necessary:

Wikipedia needs a better DAB navigation system... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 05:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links above are out of place on this dab page per WP:MOSDAB. If you believe that MOSDAB should be amended, you are welcome to make appropriate proposals there (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation). Meanwhile, disambiguation pages are to conform to standing guidelines.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 00:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the link you provided supports your point. "All pages beginning with Ob" do not fall under the "articles where Title is part of the name" clause because "Ob" is not a part of the name, but a part of the words (beginning with "Ob"). That is absolutely not the same—you might as well link to "all pages beginning with O", which would be equally useless.

Furthermore, if something can be confused with "Ob", that should be listed in the see also section directly (as it, indeed, is). As for misspellings, those should be listed directly as well.

I would appreciate if you could explain in detail your understanding of how exactly putting a link to "words beginning with Ob" does not violate MOSDAB and, more importantly, why it is useful to readers. If someone wants to browse Wikipedia alphabetically, they have this excellent page at their disposal, available via Contents in the menu on the left side. As the index is easily available, there is no need to pollute disambiguation pages with links to parts of it. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further development:

09:39, June 13, 2007 Ezhiki (Talk | contribs | block) m (306 bytes) (rv per lack of response to the inquiry on the talk page)[1]
10:02, June 13, 2007 Eep² (Talk | contribs | block) (330 bytes) (Undid revision 137905581 by Ezhiki (talk) this is the correct "see also" style; the {{lookfrom}} entry is also valid per WP:MOS)[2]

Note that WP:MOS does not apply to disambiguation pages; WP:MOSDAB does. I also don't see where exactly in the manual of style the {{lookfrom}} entries are listed as acceptable on disambiguation pages. Please discuss before reverting... Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline does not support Eep²'s point: it recommends against it.

You're not the first person to try explaining this to him: see Requests for comment/Eep. He's been causing this kind of disruption on multiple disambiguation pages, ignoring policy, guidelines, consensus, civility, and several editors' attempts at reasoning with him. --Piet Delport 19:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information, Piet. Eep, if you will persist in restoring the link, I will block you for disruptive behavior and edit-warring. The guidelines out there have been a product of consensus of many editors; if you want them changed please follow proper channels.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ship[edit]

There is also now a ship named Ob River, apparently no Wikipedia article on it yet. Ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20454757 Kevink707 (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came here looking for exactly the same article. Such a ship needs an article. Or at least a mention, for now, in the disambig page--ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 20:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]