This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disambiguation This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

Maybe there should be a link and an article on Sega's upcoming arcade rig, the Aurora? 153.104.16.114 14:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added link. - Stormwatch 23:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name Aurora, either for the Goddess or any female, is clearly the most prevalent use of the word alone. However, the Latin meaning, and its astronomical derivation, are a major secondary use.

Therefore, a summary style (or multi-stub) page is the primary topic page, while the more specific ancillary references are relegated to the (disambiguation) page — now an example for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).

Please don't change the format without reaching consensus.

--William Allen Simpson 20:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get consensus to move the page from Aurora to Aurora (disambiguation)? —Mike 05:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current Aurora page is very confusing: It has both disambiguation article links as well as the story behind the goddess. Since the links on the Aurora page are already in Aurora (disambiguation), I've removed all the extra information already mentioned in the disambig page, and left the information about the goddess. There is a link to the disambig page in the Aurora page if readers are wanting other meanings of Aurora. —Stoa 18:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm discouraged about the status of Aurora. This was made a Primary Topic as part of the guideline discussion, and used as an example. Yet, later folks don't seem to like having a separate (disambiguation) page, and keep adding stuff to Aurora. The rule is: Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic "Where there is no such consensus, there is no primary topic page."

Therefore, I moved the page to Aurora (name) (the usual place) having only the information that I'd originally used there, and the details about the Goddess at Aurora (mythology) (as Moverton cut and pasted), and point Aurora here to (disambiguation), which will eventually be swapped at the Project.

--William Allen Simpson 03:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, working on disambiguating all links.

--William Allen Simpson 04:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone feel that it would make sense for Aurora (name) to be added to the other 2 lede entries especially as it disambiguates the people with the given name? 2.217.76.84 (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you were born in Eastern Europe or in Soviet Union couple years ago then since kindergarden you would know that the most important meaning of Aurora is the ship from which was the revolution started. :) --Jx (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My substantial cleanup of this page has been reverted out of hand by Bkonrad twice, simply because he objected to one minor aspect of it. Perhaps someone else would like to make the intro read in an encyclopaedic style, remove external links as required by the MOS, change 'Persons' (ugh!) to 'People', change 'See also' to 'Others', and remove the non-notable radio-controlled helicopted or at least just make its section heading comply with the MOS. I'd do it but I'm sure Bkonrad would revert the changes. Worldtraveller 08:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Worldtraveller considers one minor aspect is hardly minor as it involved the wholesale deletion of multiple place names. Such deletions spread out through the list are difficult and tedious to manually restore, and I honestly do not see such significant changes in the rest of the page to warrant such accusations as Worldtraveller makes. For full disclosure, there was an exchange here that has turned rather acrimonious, for reasons that still rather mystify me. I've no strong preference in how the intro is framed, but I honestly think the current intro [1] (which I'm not claiming credit for) is better than Worldtraveller's suggested revision [2]. As for external links, I don't feel that strongly about the SINGLE external link remaining on the page--personally, I feel it is more helpful for a reader to have an external link than nothing or a bare redlink, but ideally, if the topic is encyclopedic, it probably should have an article. As for the other headings, sure I'll make the changes myself. I still don't see why you are getting in such a petulant huff. If you had made ONLY the changes you suggested above, I would not have objected. Look, I'm sorry if you were offended by my reverting. Stop making such a huge case out of this. It is no big deal. Good grief. older ≠ wiser 11:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to doubt the aurora of polar bears reference. it's mentioned on the net via google a few times, that all look to be copies of the same thing, but not otherwise. see, for instance, "a group is a pack or sloth (sleuth)" http://senecaparkzoo.org/redirect.php?redirect_title=Polar%20Bear&bookmark= Gzuckier 15:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already removed it once, but it keeps coming back. I don't believe for a moment that it is correct in the sense that it is used by people who write about polar bears (and expect to be understood) as opposed to people writing poorly researched lists of collective nouns (not least because polar bears are solitary, so there is little need for a collective noun in the first place). However, it might be worthwhile to have an entry like

• An aurora is asserted by some lists of collective nouns to mean a group of polar bears.

-- just to deter well-meaning users who just read a did-you-know pseudofactoid in their paper from adding something more authoritative-sounding. Henning Makholm 12:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a verifiable source that describes this usage, then no, I don't think it should be mentioned. older ≠ wiser 20:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please create a separate article for Aurora (College). This page is a disambiguation listing for Aurora on which the college is listed (at the bottom). Cheers MidgleyDJ 11:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a HUGE Aurora Medical Company in the Midwest USA... I'm a bit surprised it's not in here but a casket company is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Person Who Is Strange (talk • contribs) 2006-11-25T02:43:27 (UTC)

The purpose of a disambiguation page like this is not to list everything called Aurora. It is to provide links to Auroras that one can read more about in Wikipedia. For whatever reason, Wikipedia contains an article about the casket manufacturer but not one about the medical company, and thus it is entirely proper that the disambiguation page links the one that has an article. It may well be that Wikipedia should have an article about the medical company and/or shouldn't have one about the casketmaker, but here is not the right place to discuss that. Henning Makholm 14:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting the deletion by Henning Makholm with the edit summary of "Remove external link disguising as disambiguation" I can find no logic for such a deletion. The following support the existence of the project. (Actually I used a different entry as noted below)

• http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/lampert06vermont.html which cites IBM Zurich Research Laboratory, "Aurora - Network Traffic Analysis and Visualization," 2004. [Online]. Available: http://www.zurich.ibm. com/aurora/ as a reference for there paper on Vermont A Versatile Monitoring Toolkit for IPFIX and PSAMP
• The following found as the first entry in a google search

IBM Zurich Research Laboratory | Systems | AURORA - Network ...The flow-based traffic profiling system developed in the Aurora network traffic analysis and visualization project uses new techniques for collecting, ...

www.zurich.ibm.com/aurora/ -

• A reference found on research.imb.com indicating a more company wide acceptance of the project. http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research.nsf/pages/r.communications.aurora.html

The revised entry is as follows:

• Aurora (Network Traffic Analysis and Visualization) a Light-Weight and Scalable Network Profiling System

Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page is a navigation tool that collects link to wikipedia articles with the same or similar titles. The meaning of "Aurora" that you have found does not have a Wikipedia article to link to, and therefore does not belong in a disambiguation page. A disambiguation page is not a web directory; neither is it an indiscrimiate list of uses of a word for cases where we don't have an article that a reader might conceivably want to find by entering the word in the search box. –Henning Makholm 21:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using that logic, are there not 18 other entries in this article that should be deleted? Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this a disambiguation page? Shouldn't it be labelled as such? Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of place names makes up more than a third of the page's length (two screens' worth of content for my browser, out of the five-and-a-half that makes up the page). The list of US places named Aurora makes up almost an entire screen by itself.

I recommend that either the list of places named Aurora be split into its own disambiguation article, or the list of US places named Aurora be turned into a two-column format, or both. I've not done either of these myself, as I thought it best to reach a wider consensus before splitting the place names out, and I'm currently unaware of policy on two-column lists in disambiguation pages.

— Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is 'Operation Aurora' placed under the heading Computers? That would be a bit like listing 'Enola Gay' under 'Physics'. 217.174.59.128 (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most boys growing up in the 1950s and 1960s in the USA remember Aurora as being the name on the slot car sets. Also they made building kits for their train sets. This is before any little boy knew about any of all the other thinga listed here under Aurora. It would seem that people have forgotten the first time they heard, seen, or read the name Aurora. It was on Boys toys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.250.107 (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would invite the editors involved in the dispute over this proposed change to bring their views to the talk page.

I support the original version, with the repetition of "song". A DAB page should be written to be easily scannable, which I think works best when individual entries can be read alone and still convey their target. It would not, for example, help things to rewrite the fictional characters section to eliminate the word "character" from each entry, even though that is technically conveyed by the section title.

I would also support adding the clarification "...from the album..." or similar to each entry, as songs can be from albums, films, musicals, etc.--Trystan (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:MOSDAB neither requires nor forbids either style, I fail to understand how the repetition helps anyone. AFAICT, it is seventy additional characters that only get in the way of helping readers locate the correct link.

MOSDAB does offer this guidance: Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary. In a sub-section labeled "Songs" in which every entry is a song, how does it benefit anyone to repeat the words "a song" for most of the entries?

I have no objection to adding information about album/film/musical where such information is available. I think the entries that do not already include this have no additional information in the linked articles. older ≠ wiser 02:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to understand doesn't give you ownership of the article. Grammatically, using noun phrases for consistency with the rest of the entries is helpful in reading, and the repetition harms no one. This discussion was had at the MOS page, which resulted in both versions being listed on the guideline. So, much like WP:ENGVAR, we don't change up the page just for you. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having unfounded opinions about grammar doesn't give you WP:OWNership either. It does harm readers in that it requires loading an additional 70 characters and requires scanning unnecessary and redundant text to identify the correct link. older ≠ wiser 16:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And ironically, I am often in disagreement with editors who want to make the description terse to the point of being nearly unintelligible, and here I'm arguing to trim obviously redundant text from the text. older ≠ wiser 16:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not all redundancy, even obvious redundancy, is bad redundancy or unnecessary redundancy. And there is no consensus for your unfounded opinion of harm, so (since neither of us has ownership), we continue along with the way it has been. It should have been simple. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain precisely how Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum does not apply? older ≠ wiser 17:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It applies. Please see how we repeat "film" in "Aurora (2006 film), a Ukrainian film" rather than the shorter "Aurora (2006 film), Ukrainian". -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a poor comparison, since "Ukrainian" appended in that manner is ungrammatical. There is nothing ungrammatical about appending "by XYZ" to the name of a song. Besides, in your example "film" is a part of the parenthetical disambiguation in the title. By that logic, the entry should be "Aurora" (Foo Fighters song), a song by the Foo Fighters rather than simply "Aurora" (Foo Fighters song). Further, indicating the national of origin for the films is helpful for readers to distinguish one film from another. Repeating "a song" for almost every entry provides no additional information for a reader in determining which entry is desired. older ≠ wiser 18:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a poor comparison because it doesn't back up your position. Please explain precisely how ", Ukranian" does not indicate nation of origin. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question. I did not what you seem to think I said. older ≠ wiser 17:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the revision without "song" in every entry. The section heading makes it clear that each one is a song, and the extra wording doesn't improve the flow of these entries. The additional detail about the source of each song is helpful and should stay. Nick Number (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And there's the crux. Some editors prefer one way, and some another. Rather than war over it, the dab project opted to use either, which means not changing a dab page from one to the other just because. Which is what Bkonrad was doing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And editors (including yourself) routinely change disambiguation pages to your preferred style all the time. There's nothing unusual about that. Unless there is a compelling reason for using a more verbose description, I don't see any reason for maintaining the verbose version. older ≠ wiser 18:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And Unless there's a compelling reason not to use consistent noun phrasing, I don't see any reason for changing from consistent noun phrasing. Rather than war over it, the dab project opted to use either, which means not changing a dab page from one to the other just because you don't see reasons. No compelling reason to change = no change. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSDAB says zilch with regards to any preference for using consistent noun phrasing. It does very clearly say to Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum. You have not given any good reason for such purposeless repetition. older ≠ wiser 17:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have not given any good reason for changing from a WP:MOSDAB-listed format. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Independent of the preference discussed above, it is standard to use a section for long lists. I propose we put the song section back in per MOSDAB. I'm aware that it introduces redundancy, but the issue of reducing redundancy should be considered in the preference aspect (the description), rather than what we can all agree on. Widefox; talk 11:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that however the above discussion is resolved, the section headings help people quickly find the right link. I've restored them.--Trystan (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Character" Section seems a bit messy... Disney is mentioned first and another mention is made of Sleeping Beauty in Once Upon a Time... But I know that the name is also used in Sleeping Beauty Ballet from 1890, so that should have precedence, if there isn't another source HE used to get the name for his protagonist character from... I'd think the section should have a "proper" Line for Princess Aurora, "the titular character in Sleeping Beauty" and under that give a list for the most important appearances of this combination of story and name... with both the first work to use it and/or Tschaikowski at the top and Disney at the right chronological place below it. This isn't a Disney Fanblog after all, but is meant to inform people about ways the name has been used, using chronological order seems the closest to "Neutral Point of View" one can get for this. --5.146.47.110 (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If nobody objects, I would revise the entries like this:

• Sleeping Beauty, a fairy tale character, named Aurora in some adaptations
  • Princess Aurora, the character in the 1890 Tchaikovsky ballet The Sleeping Beauty
  • Aurora (Disney character), the character from the 1959 Disney film Sleeping Beauty
  • Princess Aurora, the Sleeping Beauty character in the 2011 TV series Once Upon a Time

Nick Number (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+ Aurora - US 70's Jazz Rock / Progressive Rock band [3] [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpyvvikky (talk • contribs) 02:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]