[WikiEN-l] My irrelevant hatnote disambiguation policy

[ScottL]

stevertigo wrote:
> --- Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hate it.  
> 
> As in "isch, I donst tsink so?"
> 
>> It's not obvious to the naive reader.  
> 
> Nor is the disorganised current system, or the edit link for that matter, depending on
> how you define naieve.
> 

   How is a plane English sentence describing what someone might have 
wanted, or indicating that if they wanted something else in general, 
that they should follow a link not obvious?  It is in plane english and 
does not require that a person be "in the know" or an editor.  First 
time wikipedia users can get it.


>> The link is out of the body of the article, and people are already well-trained by
>> numerous websites to ignore content outside the central box.  
> 
> Do you have a source for that?

WTF?

> 
>> The word 'Disambiguation' itself is Wikipedia jargon; it isn't obvious that it
>> means 'If you wanted another meaning of this term, go here'.
> 
> Hm. So edit this page" and "what links here" are common jargon? 
> On the one hand you say 'it has to be in the content, because people dont look
> elsewhere.' Not the most compelling argument. On the other hand you say 'its special
> wiki terminology, though it doesnt belong with other special wiki terminology:' Recent
> changes, What links here, Related changes, Special pages...
> 
> Sigh.

   You seem to be confusing editors with casual readers.  Most of the 
features you point at are for editors.  People who will take the time to 
get use to the conventions and terms used.  Some people just want to 
find the right article.

> 
> -sv
> PS: Does adding actual fact content to Uncyclopedia constitute "trolling"?

Lol

SKL