Talk:Koko

Order of entries on dab pages

Hi, just to let you know that most of the time a chronological order isn't the best way of arranging entries on dab pages (see WP:DABORDER). Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am aware WP:DABORDER states, as appropriate, alphabetical or chronological. Leaving it open to even that being optional.

(1) Have I done some damage in adding missing dates and in physically sorting by date like-named items? (2) What basis is there for your assertion "most of the time?" I feel I have only applied "chronology" to appropriate situations.

I feel that for a visitor to wiki, wouldn't having a clue, as in a date, so that if they are looking for something more recent or something pertinent to a particular time period, wouldn't having a date facilitate discerning at least that difference between like-named items? I also thought having things organized facilitates the viewers gaze and aids future editors in figuring out where to insert items during page maintenance. Dating and sorting, I'm thinking here especially of those trudging through life laboring under misapprehensions like that The Beatles ripped off some of Paul's and his band Wings music.

I only saw your edits at Koko and I haven't reverted them as I don't have a strong opinion on that. WP:DABORDER states that entries are typically ordered first by similarity to the ambiguous title, then alphabetically or chronologically as appropriate (emphasis is from me). So that would mean for example Koko (novel) coming before Ko-ko, and this order is followed by most dab pages I've seen so far, so changing the order here creates inconsistency and isn't helpful to the reader. Now, when it comes to ordering within each set of identically named entries, then of course the chronological order makes sense. Uanfala (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, as the sub-category, by your example, is Fiction, and the items are almost all character names versus just the single play and single novel title (which you referenced), so under Fiction, maybe breakout sub-sub-category Character versus Media seems more apropos.

And, as one more salient point, sorting by date seems most appropriate in general as authors, and basically people, tend to be influenced by the past in appropriating names and ideas for their own derivations. And thus it would seem that the historicity of the usage of the name, or other disamb term, is easily attenuated visually with chronological ordering– for the discerning viewer. WurmWoode^T 21:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase is "similarity to the ambiguous title" and this is how entries on most dab pages are ordered. So, for the Fiction section in Koko this would mean we start with Koko (novel) and all the characters named just Koko (between themselves ordered chronologically), then list the ones whose names contain that word (Koko the Clown going before "Koko Hekmatya"). Ko-Ko (with the hyphen) would go either in the middle or at the end. As for the chronological order – yes, it is sensible and sometimes it would be best to ditch the guidelines in order to use it. Uanfala (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ambiguous title at that point is Koko in Fiction, but dealing with character names and then just two titles, may I suggest change Fiction to Fictional characters, and throw the two titles into Media or some such for these two out-liers. WurmWoode^T!

I'm only seeing one title (Koko (novel)), which is the other one? I wouldn't expect the title of a work of fiction to be in a Media section, Literature seems good, but there have to be at least two entries. Uanfala (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My eyes, my eyes! I don't know why Koko conflated itself with The Mikado in my mind. You missed how I kept saying that there were two titles involved, to be fair, I said a novel and a play. So now, wowzers, ALL character names except one novel. Agh! That makes some better sense now out of your frame, since I now no longer have two items for my frame. Thank you.

Still, with all names and one title, as a mainframe programmer, it "hurts" my database schema to mix apples and oranges together, like names versus titles. I lean towards split-out, but if only a second title could be found to make that solution more palatable.

So under Fiction characters just the names, and under Fiction the novel and Koko Flanel, 1990 film, and KoKo Chops Suey 1927 film by Max Fleischer and Koko and the Ghosts 2011 film? WurmWoode^T 00:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koko the food company

Is Koko the food company worth mentioning?

https://www.kokodairyfree.com/about_us/

EDLIS Café 18:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdRicardo (talk • contribs)

This is a disambiguation page: a list of Wikipedia articles which might have been called Koko in the absence of other articles also claiming the title. The first step would be to check whether Koko the food company is notable| enough to have its own article. If so, you could create the article with a title such as Koko (food company) or Koko Dairy Free, then list it on this page. Certes (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koko (Hip-Hop/Grime artist)

Koko is a YouTuber / up and coming music artist, how can I create a Wikipedia article about him? Koko.BMF (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Koko.BMF: You don't. Wikipedia does not accept articles about up-and-coming people or things. Only topics that are already notable (as Wikipedia defines it) are considered to be worthy of inclusion. Once this person has achieved a level of notability that is evidenced by significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, then it may be possible.

If this is person is actually yourself, then you should definitely not write about yourself, for reasons explained at Wikipedia is not about YOU and Wikipedia:Autobiography. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "koko" in African languages

I remember it meant your ancestors, your blood? Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It means "blood" in Hawaiian apparently, but that kind of information doesn't really belong here. – Uanfala (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]