[WikiEN-l] Dab page notice

[quiddity]

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)#Red_links
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Items_appearing_within_other_articles

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)#Set_index_articles
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