Talk:Saint George (disambiguation)

Untitled

Check:

Merging

I feel this should be merged with St. George's (disambiguation). Please discuss at Talk:St. George's (disambiguation) --Quarl 04:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sub dab page

I've created a sub dab page at St. George's Church, because there are so many of them. If that was a bad idea, then anybody's welcome to make it back into a redirect; I just thought it made sense after moving Saint George's Church to Saint George's Church, Singapore per a move request. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disgree with the chnge you made, but I think we need to discuss it first. Did you check What links here? If we're going to break this up, I think we should give some thought about what goes where, and cross-reference it a little better than it was earlier this month. --evrik ^(talk) 22:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I actually did forget to check the "what links here", or I would have probably altered some of those redirects to point to the more specific dab page. I'll hold off on changing anything more while we talk about it.

With so many St. George's Churches, it seems reasonable to have a disambiguation page at that title. I think that a reader who types "St. George's Church" into the search box isn't looking for St. George, Ontario, or any of the dozens of other non-church topics, although they may be searching for a chapel or cathedral. It seems to me that this page could either continue to include all of those same links, or it could simply have a link to the more specific page, or both. What do others think? I'm not really a disambiguation expert; is there a usual way to handle such cases? I don't think I see any harm in redundant dab pages, but if our convention is to avoid them, so be it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is St George the person, the places, the churches and the objects. Doesn't it make sense to focus on improving the layout of this page and have it all come to one place. --evrik ^(talk) 21:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that should be done. I don't see the harm in a more focused (albeit redundant) dab page when someone specifically asks for the church, but I think the single dab page is also fine. I was looking at this page and wondering how to group the cathedrals, churches and chapels under one heading more elegant than "Cathedrals, churches and chapels". That would be a structural improvement, kind of like how all the place names are grouped by nation, speaking of which, please see the next topic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australia is a place

Evrik, why did you revert my edit on this page? I corrected the header level, so as to include Australia under Places, and not to include Canada under Australia. Look at the table of contents; it makes no sense. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I did that ... sorry. --evrik ^(talk) 16:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint George

Shouldn't a link to this article appear at the top of the Saint George article?--Jeff79 (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]