Talk:Rice (disambiguation)

She isn't Secretary of State yet. (Alphaboi867 21:11, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC))

About "Rice" -- wasn't there a woman named "Donna Rice" who had an affair with a politician back in the 1980s or 1990s in the US? Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

If you were looking for her, likely you'd enter Donna Rice in the Go box. She is also listed at Rice (surname). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The remarks above show that the page did not make it sufficiently obvious that there is a list of people with the name Rice. [1]

To fix this, I recently added a section for People with the link to the surname page. [2] It was reverted with the comment "not necessary to sort every use, tiny categories make the page longer witout making it any easier to find uses"

I would like to restore the People section, and the one for Food, however, I see there is more than one point of view on this, and so I did a little wiki research with the following result:

It seems that where a disambiguation page does not have names of people, it is common practice to either have a People section or a hatnote. Both methods make it immediately obvious there is a surname page and that the surname page actually contains the names of people with Wikipedia articles.

For examples using a People section, see Hall (disambiguation), Williams, Stone. Robinson, Jones, Jackson, Jones

For examples of the hatnote method see Bush, Martin, Davis (surname),

Although the hatnote used less often, I am using it here because objections have been made to lengthening the page by adding the People section.

I am also moving the miscellaneous links at the top of the page to "other uses". My reasoning is this: It is very uncommon to have unsorted terms at the top of a disambiguation page, and to also have an Other uses section; in fact it is contra to WP:DAB. Two of the unsorted items could go under a new section for Food, but since short sections have been objected to, I am moving them to Other Uses.

I hope this compromise is agreeable to all. — KeptSouth (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was editing the dab page while you were writing this. I do not believe listing the most likely uses first (not unsorted, but sorted by likelihood, and possibly ungrouped) and having "other uses" is not contrary to the dab project. Disambiguating ambiguous things in a hatnote in a disambiguation page shouldn't be done; {{distinguish}} possibly, but actually ambiguous things should be disambiguated in the page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New section at WT:MOSDAB#Single-element "People" sections and dab hatnotes on dabs -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think a hatnote is best either - normally a section titled "People" is done and the bold type draws attention to the fact such a page exists. I tried creating the People section but the edit was reverted, as I discussed above. I don't understand why there is a controversy when numerous pages are done this way...but whatever...KeptSouth (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the number of unclassified links in "Other uses" and "See also" has multiplied to 15 when there are actually existing sections for at least 7 of these. Also why a Food section cannot be created when there are 2 food related items and WP:DAB examples show sections with 2 links. There should only be 6 links, at the very most, under "Other uses" and "See also" instead of the 15 that are currently there.

Regardless, it seems that whenever I make edits to make this page more useful, subsequent edits are done that disorganize the page and make it less helpful to readers than ever before. Therefore, it is counterproductive for me to make any changes or suggestions here. KeptSouth (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schools

Multiple schools are listed despite being only partial title matches. It seems extremely unlikely that a person looking for information on, say, a middle school, which is by its nature of rather localized relevance, would reasonably expect to find it under the term "Rice" alone. I suggest instead collecting schools under Rice (school) (or some such) and including only that entry here. ENeville (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Rice were an ambiguous name for schools (it is) and if Rice (school) existed, Rice (school) should redirect to here as an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a more appropriate title for a list of articles is possible, as I indicated. The point is, many schools with the name "Rice" exist, those for which pages already exist I've listed below (and more of which might reasonably be expected). Clearly, they do not all merit inclusion under WP:PTM for want of generic reference by only the disambiguated term. The strongest case for inclusion may be for Rice University, to the jeopardy of WP:WORLDVIEW.

Also:

Rice High School (disambiguation)
Rice High School (Texas) (disambiguation)
Brother Rice High School (disambiguation)

Which to include, and why?

At issue is a tragedy of the commons, where the usefulness of disambiguation pages for topics actually known by only the disambiguated term is dissipated. Additionally, not all editors get into the specifics of WP guidelines, but rather infer propriety from observed patterns, so the status of this page will in its part be a model for how other dabs will be edited. I suggest that the solution both most succinct and most inclusive is to list the schools with the name "Rice" on a separate page and link to that. ENeville (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Markets

It truly does not seem that Rice Epicurean Markets should be included, per WP:PTM. In addition to the general fact that "rice" the foodstuff is a staple and widely known and therefore that a person would likely already linguistically distinguish another topic from the foodstuff in reference, not referring to a secondary topic by only the isolated term "rice" in non-specific context (e.g. "Rice is good."), and therefore that a person would not reasonably expect to find said topic on WP under only the title "rice", such seems particularly true in the case of someone searching for an epicurean market, which would certainly be expected to itself carry the foodstuff. It just does not seem possible that going to or at the market, which does have a differentiated established name, there's regular confusion about whether people mean the store or the foodstuff as would follow if people repeatedly referred to both only as "rice". If there is a case to be made for the inclusion of Rice Epicurean Markets, it needs to be demonstrated. ENeville (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The argument to be made is one of custom and common sense. Businesses and institutions are often referred to in ordinary use by the most prominent and distinguishing part of their names. That's why Rice University is listed here and why, for example, Apple Inc. is listed at Apple (disambiguation). I think it's very likely that Rice Epicurean Markets is/are commonly referred to as simply Rice, and so the article should be listed here.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Establishments are often referred to in such an abbreviated format within refined contexts. However, WP:PTM indicates including a link "only if the article's subject... could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context." ENeville (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a guideline with a lot of room for interpretation in individual cases. In this case, I happen to think that the possibility of ambiguous use is sufficiently likely for inclusion, and you think otherwise. So perhaps the See also section, where the entry currently resides, is the correct place for it.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]