This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland articles
This article's current name, Jagúar (band), conforms to WP naming conventions and is not ambiguous. It is unlikely that anyone looking for the British band Jaguar would end up here, and there are hatnotes to assist anyone who may get lost. In cases such as this one, a hatnote is usually considered sufficient. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very puzzled as to how this could possibly be considered to be unambiguous. Jaguar (band) and Jagúar (band) differ by only one diacritic mark, which I can't even type on my keyboard. Names should not disambiguate solely by capitalisation or diacritics. No, perhaps no-one will find this article when looking for the British band, but what about the reverse? If I'm looking for the Icelandic band, am I also expected to be able to spell and type in Icelandic? Anyway, what on earth is wrong with Jagúar (Icelandic band) – or come to that, Jaguar (British band)? Richard New Forest (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, hatnotes are often considered sufficient disambiguation for such cases. It is considered appropriate to name an article with the least disambiguation necessary. Per WP:NCDAB:
"If there are several possible choices for disambiguating with a class or context, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler. For example, use (mythology) rather than (mythological figure)."
Also, per WP:NAMB, a hatnote directing readers to Tree (disambiguation) should not be placed at Tree (set theory) because "the reader would not have ended up at tree (set theory) if they were interested in other types of trees, as tree does not redirect there. However, a hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous. For example, Matt Smith (comics) might still be confused for the comics illustrator Matt Smith (illustrator)."
The meaning here is clear: when a disambiguated name (such as Jaguar (band) in this case) is still ambiguous, a hatnote is used. If anything, the ambiguously named article in this case is Jaguar (band), not this article, so I am rather puzzled why this article was moved to Jagúar (Icelandic band) and not that one to Jaguar (British band). If you wish to resolve any ambiguity between the two articles, Jaguar (band), being the more ambiguously named article, should be the article moved to a further disambiguated title. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, both articles should be properly disambiguated. It was me who renamed the Icelandic one, and to be honest I can't remember why I didn't do the same to the other – probably I just forgot. Either way, the current names are far too similar. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
