On 10/5/08, quiddity <blanketfort(a)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_page…
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&am…
is my favorite. Note that [[Romansch language]] is okay to link to as
it's not a "common term.
—C.W.