Talk:Pliny

Untitled

Given the fact that almost every link to this page is, in fact, a link to Pliny the Elder page, shouldn't we move this disambiguation page to Pliny (disambiguation) and redirect Pliny to Pliny the Elder? --PeterCantropus 16:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. It would serve the reader. --Wetman 00:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But, on the other hand, the other languages Wikipedias have a disambiguation page in the Pliny article. That doesn't matter? --PeterCantropus 16:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

---

There are TWO Plinys who really matter, one is a very important historian, the other is the witness to the eruption of the Vesuvius among other things. All the other ones are called after Pliny the Elder, but once they are interesting enough as to have a WP article, they should be counted -- and kept on the disamb. page.

What SHOULD be done though, is keep the important ones a bit apart. They get over 90% of the hits, the rest are also-rans. Please do help me on that. It's useful to the WP user (more structure helps them with finding their way), which is the only truly valid argument anywhere on WP, plus it's logical, neat, and harms no-one. I have a stalker undoing my disamb. page edits quite indiscriminately, so if you agree, I'd appreciate your support. Thanks.Arminden (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Another ill-fated attempt to make Wikipedia "foolproof". Please drop it, Arminden. To list all Plinys once is ok, the reader will have to be guided by the identifications after their names, and in case of doubt, will have to read to read both articles, the Elder's and the Younger's. There can't be any harm in acquiring additional knowledge. Kraxler (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)