On 10/5/08, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand why you're responding to that talkpage-thread on this mailing-list, but I'll reply here anyway.
I read about the situation.on this list so I'll respond to it on this list, for the time being. Maybe later on I'll comment in those threads but I'm not looking forward to it.
I tend to communicate poorly when surrounded by editors who think the MOS was delivered to Tony1 on the holy slopes of Mt. Sinai, New South Wales.
But yeah, I was overstating the case on that. The book ''Wizards'' was listed in the bibliography at one of the articles about the authors, so it could have been left in. However, the topic is now a stub, [[Wizards (anthology)]], so specific problem solved.
Well, we've done the right thing for the wrong reasons, so good for us. The actual circumstances won't matter much unless somebody's mental keyboard gets stuck on DEL LOCK.
the entries for the film shorts without any blue links (currently) should be removed (for now). e.g. *[[Kiss (2001 film)]], a film by Julie Anne Wight
Removing red links makes estimation of long-term workload rather more difficult.
I did say that: "(Well, actually, we'd split them off into a separate set index, but still...)" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages... Not the best example, but it was 2am. Sorry.
Ah, well I did not recognize this particular term "set index" <comet> the more you know
I'm not sure of what would be the benefit of listing these peaks together in a non-disambiguatory "prose" article as they have nothing more in common than the name... and... being... a mountain.
The reader could be looking for dozens or hundreds of things that will never be an article /or even mentioned in an article/. (because the topics are not notable [incrementalism notwithstanding]).
Yeah, well if something is not mentioned in any article, it either means we've never heard of it or we've gone to impressive lengths to expunge it (a couple high-profile AFDs come to mind). I wouldn't know where to begin handling either case.
Anyway. I just saw the potential use for a template that explained to editors that entries like *A [[River delta]] is a [[landform]] at the [[River mouth|mouth]] of a [[river]]. should instead be formatted (at the [[Delta]] disambig page) like this: *[[River delta]], a landform at the mouth of a river
More of a waterform surely? The "remove links that no true scot would click on" principle has worked sooooooo well for disambig pages that it is being experimentally applied to proper articles.[1]
You should probably go discuss the finer points of the MOS:DAB at the actual talkpage, where all the people who work on this stuff hang out...
Like I said, I don't trust my ability to participate civilly in that discussion.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Switzerland&diff=239558371&... is my favorite. Note that [[Romansch language]] is okay to link to as it's not a "common term.
—C.W.