Disambiguation | ||||
|
What namely does WP:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages say about the number of link to each article? Provide an exact citation, please. Redirects are also not discouraged on a valid pretext. I strongly suggest user:JohnBlackburne to consult WP:DABREDIR actually (2. the redirect could serve as an alternative name for the target article…) instead of waving various WP:three-letter-combination bludgeons. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 17:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The list, as it stands, is quite confusing, as some of the items are special cases of others. Here is it again, numbered for convenience:
[1], [2], and [3] are all special cases of [4] (in 2, 3 and 4 dimensions, respectively). [4] is itself a special case of [5].
Moreover any [6] is a subgroup of [1], and any [7] is a subgroup of [2].
Ok, the article does not actually say otherwise. But for a reader who does not already know what all these groups are (and is maybe trying to find out), it could be more helpful. Maproom ( talk) 17:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved JohnBlackburne words deeds 10:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Rotation group →
Rotation group (disambiguation) – From the recent discussions it seems clear many of the topics here are related, and that 'rotation group' is more than just a title but is the (concrete) thing that relates them. I thought of creating an article but one already exists,
orthogonal group. So
rotation group should redirect there, this page should be at
rotation group (disambiguation) with
rotation group as its primary topic. Relisted.
BDD (
talk) 00:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds
20:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I closed the above procedurally as the page has already been moved – I would not normally close a discussion I started otherwise.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 10:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
This dab needs a cleanup. We have the same entry listed twice and I see no reason why. There may be better options like a WP:BROADCONCEPT? Widefox; talk 02:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I am puzzled by Widefox's addition of "also", in "Rotation group may also refer to:". The links below this line are not additional uses of "rotation group" as defined in the preceding line, they are special cases of it. Maybe the page could start
A rotation group is any group of orientation-preserving orthogonal transformations of a Euclidean vector space, which have a common fixed point.
Rotation group may more specifically refer to:
[italics used here to show my proposed changes] Maproom ( talk) 08:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict)The multiple links is the first thing discussed on this page: see #Only one link to each article. After the discussion I accepted Incnis Mrsi's arguments and left them in. The further discussions below that led to the page move discussion and the determination that this page should be moved to its current location. I see various discussions since but none that challenges that outcome. Normally there are two ways to challenge a RM that comes to a clear conclusion (as opposed to "no consensus"). A Move review can be used in exceptional cases to challenge a RM discussion that has been inappropriately ended. Or a further RM discussion, though it's normal to do that only after some time has passed, to allow time for consensus and/or circumstances to change.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 11:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation | ||||
|
What namely does WP:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages say about the number of link to each article? Provide an exact citation, please. Redirects are also not discouraged on a valid pretext. I strongly suggest user:JohnBlackburne to consult WP:DABREDIR actually (2. the redirect could serve as an alternative name for the target article…) instead of waving various WP:three-letter-combination bludgeons. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 17:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The list, as it stands, is quite confusing, as some of the items are special cases of others. Here is it again, numbered for convenience:
[1], [2], and [3] are all special cases of [4] (in 2, 3 and 4 dimensions, respectively). [4] is itself a special case of [5].
Moreover any [6] is a subgroup of [1], and any [7] is a subgroup of [2].
Ok, the article does not actually say otherwise. But for a reader who does not already know what all these groups are (and is maybe trying to find out), it could be more helpful. Maproom ( talk) 17:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved JohnBlackburne words deeds 10:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Rotation group →
Rotation group (disambiguation) – From the recent discussions it seems clear many of the topics here are related, and that 'rotation group' is more than just a title but is the (concrete) thing that relates them. I thought of creating an article but one already exists,
orthogonal group. So
rotation group should redirect there, this page should be at
rotation group (disambiguation) with
rotation group as its primary topic. Relisted.
BDD (
talk) 00:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds
20:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I closed the above procedurally as the page has already been moved – I would not normally close a discussion I started otherwise.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 10:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
This dab needs a cleanup. We have the same entry listed twice and I see no reason why. There may be better options like a WP:BROADCONCEPT? Widefox; talk 02:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I am puzzled by Widefox's addition of "also", in "Rotation group may also refer to:". The links below this line are not additional uses of "rotation group" as defined in the preceding line, they are special cases of it. Maybe the page could start
A rotation group is any group of orientation-preserving orthogonal transformations of a Euclidean vector space, which have a common fixed point.
Rotation group may more specifically refer to:
[italics used here to show my proposed changes] Maproom ( talk) 08:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict)The multiple links is the first thing discussed on this page: see #Only one link to each article. After the discussion I accepted Incnis Mrsi's arguments and left them in. The further discussions below that led to the page move discussion and the determination that this page should be moved to its current location. I see various discussions since but none that challenges that outcome. Normally there are two ways to challenge a RM that comes to a clear conclusion (as opposed to "no consensus"). A Move review can be used in exceptional cases to challenge a RM discussion that has been inappropriately ended. Or a further RM discussion, though it's normal to do that only after some time has passed, to allow time for consensus and/or circumstances to change.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 11:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)