Now ask which is the clearer disambiguation system: the current one or your proposed one. I am quite willing to concede that the current system can be downright peculiar and mock serious subjects, but I very much doubt this is the solution.
How does "you may have been looking for [[this]]" "mock" anything?
~~Sean
On 9/2/06, Sean Black hulksmashly@gmail.com wrote:
Now ask which is the clearer disambiguation system: the current one or your proposed one. I am quite willing to concede that the current system can be downright peculiar and mock serious subjects, but I very much doubt this is the solution.
How does "you may have been looking for [[this]]" "mock" anything?
Perhaps "mock" is the wrong word. I agree with Steve that seeing a reference to some obscure band's second album or some equally obscure video game character on almost every science or history article is highly annoying and detracts from the seriousness of the subject.
On 9/5/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/2/06, Sean Black hulksmashly@gmail.com wrote:
Now ask which is the clearer disambiguation system: the current one or your proposed one. I am quite willing to concede that the current system can be downright peculiar and mock serious subjects, but I very much doubt this is the solution.
How does "you may have been looking for [[this]]" "mock" anything?
Perhaps "mock" is the wrong word. I agree with Steve that seeing a reference to some obscure band's second album or some equally obscure video game character on almost every science or history article is highly annoying and detracts from the seriousness of the subject.
I agree with this too, but there is a very easy fix for this: a disambiguation page. They work brilliantly, and the "hatnote" for them doesn't detract from it's subject at all, no matter how serious it is. No need to reform the disambiguation policy all willy-nilly to something that is less clear. It's a fine policy, it's worked great for a long time, and there are no real flaws with it. So what is the problem?
--Oskar
On 05/09/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with this too, but there is a very easy fix for this: a disambiguation page. They work brilliantly, and the "hatnote" for them doesn't detract from it's subject at all, no matter how serious it is. No need to reform the disambiguation policy all willy-nilly to something that is less clear. It's a fine policy, it's worked great for a long time, and there are no real flaws with it. So what is the problem?
That Steve doesn't like it so is going around messing it up. No, I'm not convinced either.
- d.
On 9/4/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps "mock" is the wrong word. I agree with Steve that seeing a reference to some obscure band's second album or some equally obscure video game character on almost every science or history article is highly annoying and detracts from the seriousness of the subject.
I don't get this 'detracts from the seriousness of the subject'. Do science or history articles get all embarassed to be in the same encyclopedia as more "trivial" subjects? Do the writers of such articles, or the readers?
And should we care?
One of the strengths of Wikipedia is its trivia. Seriously. It's the breadth of our coverage that makes us appealing, and allows us to be a one-stop source of information for the curious.
To be honest, a good proportion of the history and science is as trivial as the music and videogames. This does not mock the science, nor the history.
-Matt
On 9/5/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/4/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps "mock" is the wrong word. I agree with Steve that seeing a reference to some obscure band's second album or some equally obscure video game character on almost every science or history article is highly annoying and detracts from the seriousness of the subject.
I don't get this 'detracts from the seriousness of the subject'. Do science or history articles get all embarassed to be in the same encyclopedia as more "trivial" subjects? Do the writers of such articles, or the readers?
And should we care?
One of the strengths of Wikipedia is its trivia. Seriously. It's the breadth of our coverage that makes us appealing, and allows us to be a one-stop source of information for the curious.
To be honest, a good proportion of the history and science is as trivial as the music and videogames. This does not mock the science, nor the history.
-Matt
I do think that many times such notes can be wildly out of place. A perfect example somebody mentioned eariler is this thread is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beirut&diff=21961432&oldid...
Clearly an inappropriate "hatnote"
But, again. make a disambig-page and you're fine. No need for anything else.
--Oskar
On 9/5/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I do think that many times such notes can be wildly out of place. A perfect example somebody mentioned eariler is this thread is
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beirut&diff=21961432&oldid...
Clearly an inappropriate "hatnote"
But, again. make a disambig-page and you're fine. No need for anything else.
--Oskar _______________________________________________
That example didn't require a disambiguation note. Who would mistakenly go to Beirut when looking for "Beer Pong"? Assuming good faith, whoever placed this "hatnote" has a serious misunderstanding of the concept.
-Rich Holton
[[W:en:User:Rholton]]
On 05/09/06, Richard Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I do think that many times such notes can be wildly out of place. A perfect example somebody mentioned eariler is this thread is
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beirut&diff=21961432&oldid...
Clearly an inappropriate "hatnote"
But, again. make a disambig-page and you're fine. No need for anything else.
That example didn't require a disambiguation note. Who would mistakenly go to Beirut when looking for "Beer Pong"? Assuming good faith, whoever placed this "hatnote" has a serious misunderstanding of the concept.
Presumably, someone who knows the game is called "Beirut" but has never heard of "Beer Pong". Drinking games tend not to have very well-standardised nomenclature.
On 9/5/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/09/06, Richard Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I do think that many times such notes can be wildly out of place. A perfect example somebody mentioned eariler is this thread is
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beirut&diff=21961432&oldid...
Clearly an inappropriate "hatnote"
But, again. make a disambig-page and you're fine. No need for anything else.
That example didn't require a disambiguation note. Who would mistakenly go to Beirut when looking for "Beer Pong"? Assuming good faith, whoever placed this "hatnote" has a serious misunderstanding of the concept.
Presumably, someone who knows the game is called "Beirut" but has never heard of "Beer Pong". Drinking games tend not to have very well-standardised nomenclature.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
BTW, I just looked at that article ([[Beer Pong]], that is), and it's a freakshow! It's got diagrams and everything, and it is rivaling many featured articles in length. Either someone has waaaaaaaaaay to much time on their hands, or something very fishy is going on. I'm tempted to put a comment in the wikitext that says "Attention! Many other articles need help! Don't waste time here!" or something ;)
--Oskar
On 05/09/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, I just looked at that article ([[Beer Pong]], that is), and it's a freakshow! It's got diagrams and everything, and it is rivaling many featured articles in length. Either someone has waaaaaaaaaay to much time on their hands, or something very fishy is going on. I'm tempted to put a comment in the wikitext that says "Attention! Many other articles need help! Don't waste time here!" or something ;)
Just be a reference obsessive ;-p
- d.
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 05/09/06, Richard Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I do think that many times such notes can be wildly out of place. A perfect example somebody mentioned eariler is this thread is
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beirut&diff=21961432&oldid...
Clearly an inappropriate "hatnote"
But, again. make a disambig-page and you're fine. No need for anything else.
That example didn't require a disambiguation note. Who would mistakenly go to Beirut when looking for "Beer Pong"? Assuming good faith, whoever placed this "hatnote" has a serious misunderstanding of the concept.
Presumably, someone who knows the game is called "Beirut" but has never heard of "Beer Pong". Drinking games tend not to have very well-standardised nomenclature.
I would say that classifying that hatnote as "inappropriate" smacks of not being sufficiently NPOV. It is us expressing a POV that such a game should not be referred to by that name. That we find it "inappropriate". We are in the business of writing an encyclopedia not editorializing on the appropriateness of what people name things (even obscure second albums from a band that was successful some number of years ago).
SKL
On 9/5/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/4/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps "mock" is the wrong word. I agree with Steve that seeing a reference to some obscure band's second album or some equally obscure video game character on almost every science or history article is highly annoying and detracts from the seriousness of the subject.
I don't get this 'detracts from the seriousness of the subject'. Do science or history articles get all embarassed to be in the same encyclopedia as more "trivial" subjects? Do the writers of such articles, or the readers?
No, it just looks silly. :-)
On 9/5/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
No, it just looks silly. :-)
Perhaps we need a "Warning! Wikipedia contains trivia!" pastel box.
-Matt
What about changing hatnotes to something like a wikiquote box? Stick it in the upper right hand corner of the article and have it read something like the standard generic hatnote does now. It still gets people to the article they need but removes notices about Britney Spears songs and Law and Order episodes across the tops of science articles.
On 05/09/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
What about changing hatnotes to something like a wikiquote box? Stick it in the upper right hand corner of the article and have it read something like the standard generic hatnote does now.
{{otheruses}} is a template; it's used in RATHER A LOT of places, so I wouldn't mess with it without checking with the devs that something nasty wouldn't happen to the database (I remember when someone changed {{stub}} and everything ground to a halt for a while), but if you think something non-ugly can be done that would get consensus, then fine.
Personally, I think it's fine as is - an italicised single line saying "look here for other meanings" - and should be left the heck alone.
- d.
On 05/09/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/09/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
What about changing hatnotes to something like a wikiquote box? Stick it in the upper right hand corner of the article and have it read something like the standard generic hatnote does now.
{{otheruses}} is a template; it's used in RATHER A LOT of places, so I wouldn't mess with it without checking with the devs that something nasty wouldn't happen to the database (I remember when someone changed {{stub}} and everything ground to a halt for a while), but if you think something non-ugly can be done that would get consensus, then fine.
Plus this would just be patchy - there's about four or five different {{otheruses}} variants, and a vast number which are manually styled.
On 9/5/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote: <snip>
Personally, I think it's fine as is - an italicised single line saying "look here for other meanings" - and should be left the heck alone.
Amen, brotha!
--Oskar