Talk:Eruption (disambiguation)

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

Suggested move[edit]

I think every single page that links to Eruption ([1]) is after the volcanic phenomenon, rather than the dental one or the band. Also, I'd guess the vast majority of people searching for the term 'eruption' are looking for the volcanic one. It would seem to me to make more sense to move Eruption to Eruption (disambiguation), and make Eruption a redirect to Volcano, as Volcanic eruption currently is. Any opinions, agreement or objection? Worldtraveller 21:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support. — Monedula 07:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree as long as it would be a redirect to volcano. A disambiguation page at the "title (disambiguation)" works fine if the article "title" includes a short sentence at the beginning to guide to the disambiguation page. But for a redirect this is not possible, and in "volcano" the hint for other meanings of eruption would be misplaced. Thus noone would find the disambig page, and those following a wrong link would get quite confused. andy 12:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agreed with your logic there, but since this discussion I've noticed a number of pages with a line at the top saying 'xxx redirects here. For other uses of xxx see xxx (disambiguation). So, I still think that the move I suggested beforehand would be sensible, and at the top of volcano we can put a line saying 'Eruption redirects here. For other uses of eruption see eruption (disambiguation)'. What do you reckon? Worldtraveller 11:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, in the absence of any objections to my recent idea, I'll be bold and do it. If anyone doesn't think it's a good idea, they're most welcome to revert it, of course. Worldtraveller 16:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]