Talk:Battle of the Blues

Royal–Thomian

In common terms the term "The Battle of the Blues" refers to the Royal–Thomian. A Google search would indicate;

• The Battle of the Blues has 63,900,000 results,
• Battle of the Blues+Royal 13,000,000 results,
• Battle of the Blues+Kandy has 1,180,000 results,
• Battle of the Blues+Jaffna has 1,420,000 results,
• Battle of the Blues+Matara has 714,000 results
• Battle of the Blues+Ambalangoda has 19,000 results

Therefore the term "The Battle of the Blues" commonly refers to the Royal–Thomian while, Battle of the Blues may be termed with other entities. Cossde (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolute garbage.(Wo2gana (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)).

Your results clearly show that Royal–Thomian does not have exclusive use of "The Battle of the Blues". Therefore it is wholly wrong to redirect The Battle of the Blues to Royal–Thomian. The actual results are:

• "Battle of the Blues" "Royal" 68,900;
• "Battle of the Blues" "Jaffna" 5,150;
• "Battle of the Blues" "Kandy" 17,000;
• "Battle of the Blues" "Matara" 4,500;
• "Battle of the Blues" "Ambalangoda" 2,260.

--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Obi2canibe, although there are slight variations in the other search results you have provided I do find 74,100 from the search string "Battle of the Blues" "Royal". However, taking your point I used the search string "The Battle of the Blues" which produced 254,000 results. Of which in the first 10 pages of results (100 links) only one was of Jaffna, 2 from Oxbridge encounters, 15 of musical contests related to Blues, 2 from SLPF politics, 2 of Duke Vs UNC and three other items. Apart from that the rest where about the Royal-Thomian. Therefore it is evident that "The Battle of the Blues" is most commonly refereed to the Royal–Thomian. Cossde (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Teasing, what's next? (Wo2gana (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)).

@Cossde - You have just made my point. "Battle of Blues" is used by many things, not just Sri Lankan cricket matches. Wikipedia is here to provide information that's relevant to the whole world, not just one country or one prestigious school. Therefore Royal-Thomian does not have exclusivity over "The Battle of Blues".--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Pipes or no pipes

I think the "no pipes" links as shown in this version would be best. The guidelines don't want pipes. Any objections to changing the links back? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What pipes are you referring to? The current version does not have any piped links. Perhaps you are confusing redirects with pipes? WP:DABREDIR suggests that Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term which is already in the article's lead section. older ≠ wiser 15:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

By golly, you're right. I thought that when I changed it the first time, I just removed the pipes. (I've been a bit distracted with other things.) Either way, a pipe or a redirect, the effect is the same, and the items are not the same as the targets. Case in point: Battle of the Blues (North Carolina) leads to Carlyle Cup and "Carlyle Cup" isn't even mentioned in the description (although it's named in the lede of the article). To me, that's not helpful to visitors. Shouldn't we have the article name first and foremost with a straight link, and the description saying what it is, at least containing the name of the target? The reason I raised this issue is that, say, for example, a visitor types Battle of the Blues, knowing he's looking for a term that is "XXXX Cup", well, the term "Carlyle Cup" isn't mentioned in the description. We just see "Battle of the Blues (North Carolina)" and a location. This is the same for many of the items. I'm just thinking from the point of view of visitors. I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)