Talk:Keane (disambiguation)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Keane (disambiguation) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Hi Guinnog, sorry dude i removed the link to John B Keane, he is listed under the names section with all other people called Keane, the only reason why Roy Keane is an exception is the fact that he is commonly refered to as just 'Keane'. 124.187.41.188 07:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your point was what?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Murphy Inc (talk • contribs).

The reason they made those edits is to fit the disambiguation page in line with the guidelines at WP:MOSDAB. They were good edits, and they improved the page. Note how they moved the page into alphabetical order, and separated it into two sections: Things that are called just Keane (book, film, band, surname), and things that aren't called just Keane (Roy Keane, Keane Inc). This fits in with guidelines and policies, so now I have explained how those changes improved the page, I will revert to that diff. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walrus, i am afraid you are so wrong about that. Did you read the guidlines at WP:MOSDAB before quoting them to me? I have reverted your changed and these are the reasons:

Keane (surname) is not something that can be described as are called Keane, Keane surname is Keane, it is the primary use of the word Keane. Everything else comes from the name, so therefore according the the guidlines you quoted the primary source sits at the top

Keane is a surname of Irish origin.

Keane may also refer to:

Keane (film) - The film is about someone called Keane!

Keane (band) - The band is named after someone called Keane!!

Keane - The company was started by someone called Keane!!!

Roy Keane - A footballer commonly called Keane!!!!

etc....

Does this make sense now? Keane (surname) Is the primary use of the word and therefore sits at the top. You know fully well that i have recently reverted all the edits and vandalism from users such as Fluence and their love of that stupid pop band and am trying to keep this page settled for a while, and while you correct in your comments that anyone can edit wiki as they please it is still considered polite and in keeping with the ethics of wiki to discuss proposed changes first with other editors. Just changing someone elses work with no discussion is bloody rude especially when i am trying to keep this page together. You did not seem bothered before when this page pointed directly to the bloody pop band!! Murphy Inc 19:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For why I mentioned MOSDAB, see one of the edits you questioned. I was merely relaying the reason he gave (as your original post on this talk page seemed to suggest you didn't know why they made the changes). No, I didn't read the guideline before I posted. The last time I read it was many months ago. User:PEJL is a user who has made many thousands of edits in his time here, so probably doesn't have each page on his watchlist. If you would like more of a reason as to why he made the changes he did, perhaps you should ask him on his talk page.

As for suggesting that I wasn't bothered about this page being the location of the band's article, you will see that is false. If you look at this section of the Keane (band) talk page, you will see that I was the first person to respond to the suggestion that the page be moved.

I should also mention that I agree 100% that Keane as a surname is the most important usage (and if you look at the version I reverted to, it was still at the top of the links, just not at the top of the page), however, looking through other disambiguation pages that can also be common surnames, such as Smith and Steele, it seems that the location of the link to the surname page can vary.

But to just go back to the MOSDAB again, I have now read the section on "Order of entries". You will see that both examples there show all the uses going below the "X can mean". The same can be said for each example given throughout the entire project page. The only exception to this is when the disambiguation is at "X (disambiguation)", as is the case in their example, School (disambiguation). Hence, when this current page was at Keane (disambiguation), the primary meaning was first, before everything else, whereas now it is at Keane it should follow the rest of the guideline.

However, I won't revert you yet. I'll wait until we can have some more discussion on this, as this is not exactly a vital matter. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in my edit summary for my previous edit, this was after an edit conflict with the edits below, so much of what I said has been explained in the "Leon White" section. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy Inc mentioned that Keane (surname) is the primary use of the word. That may be true in a general sense, however WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic and WP:DAB#Primary topic don't consider it to be the primary topic in the Wikipedia sense, since it has a disambiguation suffix, "(surname)". Therefore it should not be linked at the top, but rather as one of the entries in the list. WP:MOSDAB#Piping further says that it should not be pipe linked. WP:MOSDAB#Order of entries gives quite bit of latitude regarding the ordering, which would allow the surname entry to be the first entry in the list. I will now change the page accordingly. --PEJL 23:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? and why can you not talk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murphy Inc (talk • contribs)

We should stick to the order of entries guidelines, which says pages called "Keane" with clarifier go at the top, followed by pages with "Keane" in their titles. The surname is the primary topic, of course. - LeonWhite 20:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's no need to be rude. Please read the guidelines I mentioned above. - LeonWhite 20:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well why did you not say that before you made the changes? would have been much more helpful! and i was not being rude, i was only asking if you could talk as so far you have not attempted to. Murphy Inc 20:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway i have had a look at the guildines you posted above and again you are another who posts guidlines but does not adhere to them yourself! It does not say that the list needs to be split in two, it just says that the articles where Keane is part of the title should sit at the bottom of the list. It merely suggests that splitting the names can be done if the list is large. So the current style of this page does indeed adhere to the style guidlines. Murphy Inc 20:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Keane Inc shouldn't be pipe linked. - LeonWhite 20:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should not but Keane Inc should not be called that. According to wiki it should be called Keane (company)Murphy Inc 09:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:NC#Companies allows to be either, and expresses no preference over which is chosen. Furthermore, it says that the legal status should be included in the title sentence, so the changes you made to remove it should be reverted. --PEJL 11:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is it about you people who keep quoting style guidelines at me and cannot even be bothered to read them yourselves!! If you can show me exactly where on that page it says that "the legal status should be included in the title sentence" then i will send you a $1000 prize. It says nothing of the sort. The changes i made should not be reverted, the changes i made follow the naming conventions perfectly as i have already said so to save you actually reading it the main points are here: "When disambiguation is needed the legal status, main company interest or "(company)" can be used to disambiguate. For example, Nike, Inc., Halifax (bank) or Converse (company)" The name Keane Inc was a stupid way to disambiguate when there is not mention whatsoever of the companies legal status on its website, no proof that it is actually 'Inc'. Company is the best way by far.Murphy Inc 22:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would have quoted just a little more, you would have seen where it says to include the legal status in the title sentence:

When disambiguation is needed, legal status, main company interest or "(company)" can be used to disambiguate: for example, Nike, Inc., Halifax (bank) or Converse (company). When the legal status is used, it is abbreviated in the article title. In the article itself, the title sentence of the article should include the abbreviated legal status.

You now say that the legal status shouldn't be included because it is incorrect. I am not a mind-reader, so I had no idea that's the reason you wanted to remove it. All you mentioned previously was "according to wiki it should be called Keane (company)", which sounded more like a reference to Wikipedia guidelines than a question of factual accuracy. Consider using an edit summary in the future, to avoid these misunderstandings. Have a nice day. --PEJL 23:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that I was referring to this change. --PEJL 23:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in moving the article from "Keane Inc" to "Keane (company)". I think it should have been moved to "Keane, Inc." A 5 second search on Google yields several sources that state Keane, Inc. is correct. At this point is seems there are changes being made for the sake of making changes. "Keane Inc" or (more accurately) "Keane, Inc." is obviously a company article, so what's the point in making such a change? LaraLove^T/_C 04:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LaraLove plenty of major companies have the legal status of Incorporated, Just the same as all major UK companies have either .LTD or .PLC at the end of their legal name. But you go looking at articles on companies on Wikipedia you will see that not all of them have the legal staus of the company in the title, it is down to personal choice by the person editing the article. I decided that it was better to have the name Keane (company) as the style guidelines say i have the right. Wikipedia states that the legal name of a company should not be used in a title unless there is the need to disambiguate and then it also says that (company) can be used. Oh and as an aside you said "Keane Inc" or (more accurately) "Keane, Inc." I am afraid that according the the guidlines on naming articles about companies a comma should never be used in this manner.

As for the reasons why i made the change a read through my other comments should make that fairly obvious, I have been trying to get this page up to scratch to ensure that it does not get reverted back to Keane (band) as has kept happening previous to this latest change. LaraLove yourself were one of the editors who were against Keane pointing to this page and wanting to have it kept on the band. So until I got this page moved this disam page was a mess and it was me that got it straightened out, where was everyone then?? Why were you not concerned about it before when this Disam page began with "Keane is an English piano rock band". This is what gets my goat up, you wait till i sort it out before jumping me for every change i make!! I am not some dumb kid here, i have read all the style guidelines before tackling editing pages in Wiki, i am an intelligent adult who is quite capable of editing an article to improve the feel and usability of the piece. Wikipedia even says i can ignore the style guidelines completely if i feel it would improve the article and i am capable of deciding when this may be appropriate. I feel that Keane (company) actually fits into the list of Keane's better and looks tidier, i am giving more relevance to the uses of the word Keane and this is only to fit around the other people now editing this page stopping me from starting the page with "Keane is an Irish surname". I am at a loss to explain where you all were before i improved this page, its amazing really how some people will not even think about editing a stub but as soon as someone decides to put some effort into the article they jump straight in with both feet as though they own Wikipedia, something i had better get used to i guess!!

PEJL, sorry dude but this is maybe up for Interpretation, I have read this to mean that if you use the legal company name in the title for a an article about the company then you should be using the legal status in the title sentence, But if you don't then you don't have to. But maybe i am not reading that correct, a quick search on Wiki sees that both seem to be in current use, have a look at The Coca-Cola Company for example. no legal status is present, But i will leave the Inc in the title to be sure. Murphy Inc 05:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience with company articles, but I fail to see how the guideline saying that the legal status should be included in the title sentence can be interpreted in more than one way, or the way you interpret it. --PEJL 08:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Convention: The legal status of the company (Corp., plc, Inc. or LLC), is not normally included, i.e. Microsoft or Wal-Mart. When disambiguation is needed, legal status, main company interest or "(company)" can be used to disambiguate: for example, Nike, Inc., Halifax (bank) or Converse (company). When the legal status is used, it is abbreviated in the article title. In the article itself, the title sentence of the article should include the abbreviated legal status." Now I read the following sentence to meant that the title sectence should only include the abbreviated legal status when the legal status is also used in the article title. So do you not see the interpretation i got? Click on the example they gave of Converse (company) and tell me where the legal status? 124.185.36.204 08:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that the wording in the guideline is prone to some confusion. I maintain that my interpretation, that the sentence "In the article itself, the title sentence of the article should include the abbreviated legal status." stands on its own and is not covered by the "When the legal status is used" clause in the previous sentence, is the more obvious interpretation. If the guideline intended to say what you interpret it to say, it should have said "When the legal status is used, it should be abbreviated in the article title, and should be included (in abbreviated form) in the title sentence of the article itself." or something like that. Perhaps we should bring this to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions and ask what the intended interpretation is, and propose that the guideline be clarified to avoid these multiple interpretations. --PEJL 09:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason you have so many people looking at this page now is because MANY people had Keane on their watchlist when it was the band article. Now that it's been moved, it's still on my watchlist, as it is probably still on others. It never occurred to me to add Keane (disambiguation) to my watchlist. But now that it's there, I view changes. That's why my comments and questions are here. Glad I could clear that up. My apologies that it has become such a hassle for you, really. I can imagine it is quite frustrating. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 20:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, i am new to Wiki and not nearly as arrogant as my posts make me out to be, I am more than happy to work with and listen to the advice of other editors. What i am not happy about however is other editors just changing articles i have contributed to (and in this case been a major force in getting this article moved from the pop band) without a discussion or even posting a reason. So i cannot be arsed with this to be honest, i am taking this off my watchlist and you can do what you want. When Fluence manages to get this page pointing back at his naff pop band (as has happened a few times over the last couple of years) then so be it. Murphy Inc 20:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we are discussing here. Originally, I reverted without discussion, but then when you reverted again, I left it and came here to discuss. I have made 2355 edits, and I can't possibly discuss every single one of them before I do it, but as discussion was called for on this example, I did so. Hence the unresponded-to post I made above. We realise you are new to Wikipedia, and I have praised you on the quality of your work. I don't percieve you to be arrogant, hence why I didn't revert you again, and I attempted discussion above. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fair enough, all i am trying to do is keep this page relevant to the subject of Keane, I only came accross this by mistake while searching for Roy Keane and was amazed to find it pointing to Keane (band). I have too many arguments over that one and cannot be bothered anymore, so am Keen to ensure that this page is not seen as irrelevant so to stop it being changed again. What you probably do not realise is that the way i had the page before i deemed to be a good comprimise as from what i have read on the style guidlines there is a probably a strong case for keane to actually direct to Keane (surname) it is without a doubt the primary use of the word. I therefore thought that by having the link to the name at the top of the page would actually ensure that this primary use of the word being highlighted while at the same time keeping this disam page here and keeping Roy Keane searchers happy.

You want to know something stupid? The only reason i rented Keane (film) and subsequently wrote an article about it is simply to provide more reasons to get this page away from Keane (gay pop act), i thought it would be hard for anyone to argue once a decent article was in place about another Keane. So you can understand how much work has gone into this! God you would think i never had better things to do, i worry about my sanity!! ;-)

So i apologise to everyone i may of offended on this page, i was just cranky this morning and there was no need to go shooting my mouth of at you. I will shut up now and go. Murphy Inc 09:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well. That's fine actually. So soccer is again the reason of everything. You are against Keane. And this won't stand like that. Time goes by at such a pace. Also, personal attack. You've been way too little time here.--Fluence 00:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluence, I'm not certain I understand what you're trying to say. Look at the French page for Kezane. It is a disambiguation page. Look at the Japanese page for Keane. It's a disambiguation page. Are you genuinely trying to tell us that Roy Keane, Robbie Keane, Keane as a name and the like are less well-known and notable in the English-speaking world than they are Japan or France? Surely, if anything, as Keane (surname) is the original and primary use of the word (which the band was named after), then Keane (surname) should be at Keane, with a link to a disambig from there, and a link to the band from there? This was merely a middle ground, as all uses are equally well-known.

In Robbie Keane we have a Premiership footballer, a current Republic of Ireland international (and their all-time top goalscorer, at only 26 years of age).

In Roy Keane we have a Premiership manager, having finished top of the Championship last season, winning multiple Manager of the Month awards, and also the Manager of the Season award. As a player, he captained Manchester United F.C. for 8 years, captained the Republic of Ireland a great many times, and, as his article says, was "well known and respected as one of the greatest to grace the game".

There are many other people called Keane, from cartoonists, to musicians, to BBC correspondents, to U.S. Army generals, to religious figures, to sportsmen from various fields.

Yet despite all this, you still feel that the band is by far and away the most dominant usage of the word Keane?

Yes, Murphy Inc has been a little short-tempered at times, but he is new here, and us established users have responsibility to assume good faith even more than usual with new users, especially users who have shown a lot of talent (compare the article on Keane (film) before and after about two days of edits almost exclusively by Murphy Inc).

And what is this bizarre obsession you have with people not liking Keane? Not everyone in the world likes Keane, not everyone in the world likes the Beatles, or Aerosmith, or Bjork. Why must you repeatedly draw attention to it? I mean: "Keane is the greatest band in history. I don't care what others may complain because they're wrong"? "People who offend Keane, like some Wikipedia users, make it because they're jealous of such a fantastic band."?

I, personally, am not a big fan of Keane. Does that mean you instantly hate me too? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walrus certainly doesn't like having his edits changed. I've been watching him for quite some time now, he doesn't like ANYONE touching any piece of his work. He will get into an edit war and will then get his friends/edit gang to join in and eventually call bad faith or vandal on the opposition. Hell, alot of his edits are NOT even necessary, the guy is either just going for social rank or seniority. You really need to stop picking on anons and new users, chasing them away is going to ruin the future of wikipedia. 64.231.251.138 06:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? That's all nonsense, though I must say I'm flattered that you found me interesting enough to watch me for some time. However, you mustn't have watched me long enough, or even read anything I've written, as everything you say there is incorrect and baseless. Allow me to respond to the points you raised:

• he doesn't like ANYONE touching any piece of his work.

Where did you get that idea from? Look through my talk page, and you will see a few people explaining that they have reverted a change I have made. An example is here. In that particular instance, I edited the article on Richard Dawkins to wikilink the words bulldog and rottweiler, as I figured they could be of use to someone. I also wikilinked secular in the same edits. He reverted me, and explained why. His reasoning was good, so that was the end of that. I didn't revert him, or anything silly like that. On to the next point:

• He will get into an edit war

Where?

• and will then get his friends/edit gang to join in

If you can find even one example where I have posted on someone else's talk page asking them to revert with me, or anything of the sort, then I'll be surprised. I have not even once done such a thing. And what's an "edit gang", anyway?

• and eventually call bad faith or vandal on the opposition.

The only time I ever say someone is a vandal is when they are actually vandalising. If I don't agree with someone's edits, as has been the case in the past, I have never called them a vandal, nor issued them with vandalism warnings. As for calling bad faith, that is a ridiculous thing to say, when I regularly remind people to assume good faith, and I do so myself, even when I am in dispute with another person. For an example of that, read this page, and the talk pages of the relevant users.

• Hell, alot of his edits are NOT even necessary

Well, I wouldn't say they are essential, but most edits I make are reverting things such as spam, conflict of interests or vandalism ([1], [2], [3], [4]), or are just typo/grammar fixes, or that sort of thing ([5], [6], [7], [8]. Hence why I mark most of my edits as minor.

• the guy is either just going for social rank or seniority.

Okay. If I was interested in either of those things, surely I would not mark most of my edits as minor? Surely I would put userboxes on my userpage, or join tens of Wikiprojects, or provide links to my Myspace account on my userpage? As it happens, I am interested in neither social rank, nor seniority. I have no actual userboxes on my userpage, I have joined no Wikiprojects, and I have not put any links to anything of mine on my userpage, nor anywhere else. Indeed, if someone tried to nominate me for admin status, I would instantly refuse without hesitation.

• You really need to stop picking on anons and new users, chasing them away is going to ruin the future of wikipedia.

This is the best bit. Did you even read the post you responded to? In it, I stick up for Murphy Inc (a new user), suggesting to Fluence that we should not bite the newcomers, and that we should assume good faith. Likewise, if you read through my talk page, you will find many examples of me offering help to new users. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] And that's before we even look at talk pages that aren't my own, where I have suggested they can come to me for help if they need it. So seriously, thank you for the attention, but it's really not necessary. If you still feel that I'm such a bad editor, feel free to do something at request for comments. And of course, if you have any questions at all, feel free to ask me at my talk page. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 08:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was a fun read, what have i started? ;-) Cheers walrus for the defence, i am going to try and shut up now! Murphy Inc 08:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"For every style suggestion above, there's some page which has a good reason to do something else. These guidelines are intended for consistency, but usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason."124.185.36.204 22:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look where Keane points to again, pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]