I see that when one edits a disambiguation page now, a special notice comes up. I have a couple of problems with it.
The first is a minor point, but it says a dab page is not an article. As far as I know, it is within the technical definition of "article", and numerically it is counted as an article.
The second is more serious. Per WP:MOSDAB, a guideline, it now says "one bluelink per line". OK, I agree with the principle of light wikification in this context. But not as a rule set in stone - guidelines are not to be treated that way.
An example: [[Boll]]. Text currently reads:
* [[Franz Christian Boll]] (1849-1879), discoverer of [[rhodopsin]]
Would it help to de-link rhodopsin? No, it wouldn't. The general reader is helped by this link, because it is a technical term and the reader who expects "visual purple" should be able to click and check.
As it correctly says at MOSDAB, "Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article.". I agree, in the sense that dab pages still need common sense.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 10/4/08, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
The second is more serious. Per WP:MOSDAB, a guideline, it now says "one bluelink per line". OK, I agree with the principle of light wikification in this context. But not as a rule set in stone - guidelines are not to be treated that way.
I think this is for the benefit of bots and other automated tools for retargeting incoming links (changing [[Boll]] to [[Franz Christian Boll|Boll]] "using AWB" or whatever), with the logic that a shorter multiple-choice list makes the operation more efficient.
This is also part of the reason people remove topics for which no article exists, even those which are discussed at length in a broader article, saying "nobody would ever link to this meaning that".
Let's say "Bubba Jackbob Boll" is verifiably the name of a minor character appearing in one episode of some offbeat TV show (My Name Is Earl perhaps). Even being more inclusionist than the average pokémon trader I'd concede that not enough info will exist for an article about this grit, but I would still list him on the disambig page, and from there the name would probably redirect to the episode.
More rabidly, some people will remove red links from disambiguation pages or delete disambiguation pages consisting only of red links, even when the German version lists half a dozen actual articles.
To avoid this sort of nimrodry I would advocate changing the word "articles" to "topics" in the {{disambig}} template.
Beyond that, there are those who would replace Bubba and Franz with a link to something like [[Boll (surname)]] and list their full names one step further away, again saying "nobody would ever link to [[Boll]] in reference to a specific person". But this isn't really relevant. It may be sensible to do this in cases where the main disambig page is too crowded, but that would be a wholly unrelated concern.
In all cases we should think first of the readers. Maybe in the not-too-distant future it will be feasible for (what currently we know as) disambiguation pages to be generated and updated automatically by the software. Something like Special:Search, only a lot smarter and friendlier, who knows...
—C.W.
On 04/10/2008, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
The first is a minor point, but it says a dab page is not an article. As far as I know, it is within the technical definition of "article", and numerically it is counted as an article.
I read somewhere or other (that I can't immediately locate) that actually the tech guys have gone to some trouble to exclude some classes of pages-IRC redirects and disambiguation pages were among them.
Charles
Ian Woollard wrote:
On 04/10/2008, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
The first is a minor point, but it says a dab page is not an article. As far as I know, it is within the technical definition of "article", and numerically it is counted as an article.
I read somewhere or other (that I can't immediately locate) that actually the tech guys have gone to some trouble to exclude some classes of pages-IRC redirects and disambiguation pages were among them.
I thought I remembered the various page counts explained somewhere, but the explanation currently seems to be missing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics gives "Content pages" as 2,571,387, and "Pages*" as 14,761,735. Presumably the asterisk on "Pages*" is supposed to explain the difference, but there's no asterisk footnote anywhere on the page.
-Mark
The answers!
the template is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Disambig_editintro we discussed it primarily at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation/Archi... we are still improving the summarised-MOS-wording at the template's talkpage. (The actual MOS guideline contains any provisos/exceptions/stipulations/qualifications/contextualisations/examples (or it will once they finish arguing about it at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#More_than_one_author))
1 link per line is recommended because we're trying to find the article that the reader meant. Disambig pages are never an intended target (except via the hatnotes), but instead are signposts, pointing to actual articles, and usually with a wiktionary template.
Nobody expects the Spanish (disambiguation)! So we only highlight (link) the words that they might have meant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish
article counts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Actual_number_of_articles was recently created and discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_127#Contradictory_number...
hope that helps -- User:Quiddity
On 10/5/08, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#More_than_one_author
Uggh, what a mind-numbing thread.
I'll never understand how so many people can take so many GUIDELINES so seriously.
If it's unlikely to become an actual article, then that entry should be removed altogether,
I don't follow this logic.
just like we would if someone added a listing of all the songs titled "confusion" to the Confusion (disambiguation)
Or this. If there is a disproportionate number of songs, it would be most appropriate to make [[Confusion (song)]] a disambig page and list them all there.
We have to be discriminating to help the reader.
This is semantically too close to "prejudiced". You're making it sound implausible for a reader to be seeking info about a topic which does not correspond 1-to-1 with an existing article, but nothing could be further from the truth.
—C.W.
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 10/5/08, quiddity wrote:
If it's unlikely to become an actual article, then that entry should be removed altogether,
I don't follow this logic.
I don't understand why you're responding to that talkpage-thread on this mailing-list, but I'll reply here anyway. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages...
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.
What I intended to mean was, in a case like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_(disambiguation) 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
just like we would if someone added a listing of all the songs titled "confusion" to the Confusion (disambiguation)
Or this. If there is a disproportionate number of songs, it would be most appropriate to make [[Confusion (song)]] a disambig page and list them all there.
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.
We have to be discriminating to help the reader.
This is semantically too close to "prejudiced". You're making it sound implausible for a reader to be seeking info about a topic which does not correspond 1-to-1 with an existing article, but nothing could be further from the truth.
[Ooo, a non-politically-correct almost-synonym!
The task of writing an encyclopedia, without being discriminating (adj. defined as "possessing discernment") would be far more chaotic than it already is.]
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]). Notability inheritance is where is gets messy (and is what that discussion seems to be currently swirling around).
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
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...
Quiddity
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.
Re: set indexes
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.
To be as clear/simple AND useful/complete as possible.*
[assuming you are talking about the example given at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set_index_articles ] because [[Signal Mountain]] as a standard style dab page (with that 1 town and 24 mountains) would be almost useless. So they split the mountains out into a specialized-style dab page.
(I would guess. I wasn't involved in the creation of the "set index" idea or Signal Moutain pages...)
like with [[Live]] and the split into [[Live (album)]] or [[Brown (disambiguation)]] and [[List of people with surname Brown]] or [[Olympus]] and [[List of peaks named Olympus]]
* different editors' understanding of what constitutes "usefulness" is where the disagreements tend to arise!
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]
...
[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.
I really don't think it started with disambig pages! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ALLWIKI explains the tightrope, now don't link anything superfluous!
Was there a question in there, or were you just venting about the frustrating diversity of subjective opinions held by humans? :)
Quiddity
On 10/5/08, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
because [[Signal Mountain]] as a standard style dab page (with that 1 town and 24 mountains) would be almost useless. So they split the mountains out into a specialized-style dab page.
If the town didn't exist, the two pages would be functionally identical. Adding one town or song or movie (or anything else which despite the name is not a mountain) a trivial difference as all 25 are equally likely to be searched for as "Signal Mountain" or be the intended target of ambiguous links.
Would you move all the towns at [[List of towns named Springfield]] just because of [[Springfield]] is towns? I wouldn't.
I really don't think it started with disambig pages! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ALLWIKI explains the tightrope, now don't link anything superfluous!
Well, I fail to see how three of four languages spoken in der Schweiz are "superfluous". Better to start with verbs like "so-and-so [[walking|walked]] all the way to..." than high-profile proper nouns, but only if there is a problem so bad that rapid uncareful changes would be better than the status quo. I'm not convinced of this.
—C.W.
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Would you move all the towns at [[List of towns named Springfield]] just because of [[Springfield]] is towns? I wouldn't.
Neither would I (simplistically stated: because I tend to favour mergism), but some people would, due to their own subjective opinions.
I really don't think it started with disambig pages! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ALLWIKI explains the tightrope, now don't link anything superfluous!
Well, I fail to see how three of four languages spoken in der Schweiz are "superfluous". Better to start with verbs like "so-and-so [[walking|walked]] all the way to..." than high-profile proper nouns, but only if there is a problem so bad that rapid uncareful changes would be better than the status quo. I'm not convinced of this.
I should have said - I don't necessarily agree with that edit to [[Switzerland]] either.
I'm just trying to explain to you why it happens (because you asked).
Allwiki is one extreme, plain-unlinked-text is the other - we each decide individually where we fall in between. I'm not trying to "convince" you of anything!
Quiddity
On 10/6/08, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
Neither would I (simplistically stated: because I tend to favour mergism), but some people would, due to their own subjective opinions.
But if you merge these the supplemental information would be swiftly culled by the MOSDAB police, no?
—C.W.
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 10/5/08, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#More_than_one_author
Uggh, what a mind-numbing thread.
I'll never understand how so many people can take so many GUIDELINES so seriously.
Small things amuse small minds. :-)
Ec
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Small things amuse small minds. :-)
Details are only amusing to stupid people?
How did that contribute positively to the discussion?
Q.