Talk:Zonca

Disambiguation vs surname page

@OmniFrieza994: Hello. Re [1]. I converted this page into a disambiguation page because "Zonca" is ambiguous: there is a use which isn't a surname. There's no indication of a primary topic for any of the entries. You can't just relegate Zonca (cycling team) to See also. What you should do, if this is to be a surname SIA, is put a hatnote at the top along the lines of {{about|the surname|another use|Zonca (cycling team)}}. I think this would give undue prominence to the cycling team but if that's what you want then that would be OK. As there is no substantive information about the surname, it's just a list, my opinion is that list is better placed in a disambiguation page. So: back to a disambiguation page, or add a hatnote: you choose. Actually there's another option (which I think is sub-optimal): move it to Zonca (surname) and put a two-entry disambiguation page here). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OmniFrieza994: You've edited since you were pinged by this Talk page post, and since my reply to your post on my Talk page, so I'm going to revert your change now. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's only ONE other article with the name; it isn't even a finished one. I don't care about that team at all. It is my page, I created it, it's my choice. I'll find more info about the name or its origins and add it if I can. And yes I changed it. And I will change it again if you revert my edits. I'm not gonna go through all the trouble of making two separate pages or put in an irrelevant hatnote. There are plenty of surname pages that don't have them despite having "See also" sections and they look great. Again, the team page is a stub anyway, so what does it matter? Plus, there's already a "See also" section on it with another article inside it, so a hatnote would be redundant anyway. OmniFrieza994 (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OmniFrieza994: You're clearly not reading or understanding what I say. I'm going to ask someone else to explain it to you, but before I do that, please read Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're the one not reading or understanding. There's already a "See also" section so a hatnote is redundant. OmniFrieza994 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tidying up

I was invited here by @Shhhnotsoloud: presumably because I spend a lot of time around dab pages, surnames, and redirects.

This is a longstanding bit of a mess.

When Erick Zonca was created in 2007, a redirect should have been made from his surname, Zonca. When other articles for other people called Zonca were created (in 2009, 2018, 2019), that redirect should have become a surname list. But it didn't happen, as far as I can see.

When Zonca (cycling team) was created in 2020, I don't see why it was given a disambiguation: as far as I can see there was no page or redirect at Zonca (unless the history of this has disappeared in recent work).

For now, let's assume that the surname is the Primary Topic, in which case a hatnote pointing to the cycling team, the only other use, is appropriate, and I've added it. Certainly the cycling team is not a "See also", to be put down at the bottom of a surname page: it is an entity called Zonca and needs to be made easy to find. I think the solution with a hatnote at the top, as I've just done, works well. It's how we treat a topic with one primary use (the surname, here) and one or two other uses, rather than create a dab page to send the reader the long way round. If suddenly there were 2 or 3 new uses of Zonca (perhaps a species of moth and a village in Afghanistan), we'd need a dab page.

Note that the references on the page are all bare URLs and need to be tidied up into proper references, please. PamD 10:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find info on the name or its origins but didn't have much luck. All signs seem to point towards Italian origin. Some help finding more sources would be nice, but seeing how there are plenty of surname pages with stated origins and no sources, I think it's a pretty minor issue.

As for the disambiguation, I see absolutely no reason for a hatnote when there's already a See also section. There's plenty of both surname and disambiguation pages with this structure and they all look perfectly fine. And as I've said above, the Zonca team page is a stub anyway so it's not that important. If you want a hatnote, put it on that page instead. There's no need for it on a surname page. It's small enough anyway that the team page is clearly visible. OmniFrieza994 (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Zonca, the name of the team, must have that hatnote on the page Zonca, unless you turn the page into a disambiguation page. PamD 17:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not needed or necessary. I don't remember ever seeing a surname page with a hatnote on top. They've all had See also as far as I remember. I'm not turning it into a disambiguation page (that's not what I intended for it to be). I'm changing it back and I will keep changing it back if it's undone. That's that. OmniFrieza994 (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]