Disambiguation | ||||
|
(Continuing from Talk:Passing)
It seems to me that there are two kinds of cleanup that may be appropriate here:
I'll try to do a bit of the more mechanical cleanup (e.g., do the examples for "special ticket" really need to be a bulletized list?), but let's talk about the WP:WINAD question. Jordan Brown 03:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
A Pass can refer to:
Pass (surname) may refer to:
Passing or To pass can refer to:
Passing is also:
Similar terms:
That's about as tightly as I could see it being trimmed, but introduces a couple of red links that might not ever go anywhere. Pass (compiler) and Passing (law) would fudge out the red links. :) -- AliceJMarkham 06:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me, with the two fudges you list.
Perhaps PASS should move into the main list. Jordan Brown 19:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I found a few more nits, and I'm not entirely happy with the compiler meaning (but I can't come up with anything better), but I think our work here is pretty much done... good work! Jordan Brown 05:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
_ _ A colleague has tagged the accompanying Dab for Dab-CU. I am not going to touch it, bcz i find the overall reorganization of about 18 months ago to be a gross mistake, primarily in succumbing to the easy conflation of the noun "pass" and the essentially separate noun forms of the verb "to pass". The former Pass and Passing probably needed reorganizing in ways that would have benefited by the editors taking a viewpoint that considered each in light of the other, but the result should have been two Dab pages, each with a lk to the other:
and
Even if the page were not longer than a single screen (thereby presenting a needless impediment to the careful, the single page would still be a self-mockery in making the distinction, via a second intro line:
yet failing to put it on the
Passing page -- the page where the well-oriented user (the long-term phase of our typical users' experience) went initially, only to be redirected onto an omnibus page on which the information they sought is, unnecessarily, below the halfway point on the screen, and more than likely off the bottom of it.
_ _ It says at the bottom of every Dab page that everything on the page would be, in this case on
Pass, if it weren't for multiple topics having that as their otherwise most appropriate title. We don't tolerate verbs and adjectives as titles of articles (unless the topic is a work that has such a word or phrase as its title, or the article is not on the topic that part of speech names, but on the topic of the word or phrase itself, as with
fuck (not a Rdr to
Sexual intercourse) and
posh (not a Rdr to
luxury good). Yet this Dab page penalizes those who understand that and type "passing" when they are interested in the verb "to pass", for the accommodation of those who have not yet learned, from WP or professionally edited (print or online) encyclopedias, about the noun convention, or are looking more or less at random for ways to search for titles that use one word, without using the search box or an external search engine.
_ _ I would welcome the chance to put at least another 2¢ in if it turns out i'm not the only one who sees a problem.
--
Jerzy•
t
06:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I added some (actually quite a few) additional items and did some tidying, both of which have been reverted. I've restored them for the moment: can we now discuss?
The edit summary for the revert said:
All these new links are not apprpriate here - this page only for things known simply as "Pass", not everything with "Pass" in the name
I don't agree – a dab page is not just a list of synonyms, it is to help people find things they may look for by typing (in this case) "pass". Such things are not restricted to things known only by the single word. For example, imagine you want to look up a film you saw years ago, and could only remember that it was called "pass something" or "something pass". Similarly, what if you want to look up someone with the name "Pass"? For these and many other articles "pass" is exactly what you would type – and you'd be sorely disappointed if you only found things called "pass" and nothing else. Surely we should remember that no-one using a dab knows the full title of the page they want, or they wouldn't be here. The objective of a dab is not to keep the page short – if something is not here, people can't find it.
Secondly, how are the new links different from all the previously existing one where "pass" forms only part of the name?
Thirdly, if not all of the items do deserve to be included (which might well be possible), let's be discerning, not remove them wholesale.
Finally, another edit summary, about places with "Pass" in the name, was "there must be hundreds like them". Actually no: those were the only settlements I could find. There are hundreds of mountain passes – I did not include any of those, and they are dealt with by the link I've just added ( List of mountain passes). Not sure what to do about "sea passes" – it seems to be a Canadian and Alaskan term for passage or strait: there are quite a few, but I can't find a suitable list to link to. Richard New Forest ( talk) 15:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the list still needs trimming. The problem with having so many items is that it's hard for readers to find what they are most likely to be looking for. For example, we currently have Mountain pass, which is one of the main meanings of the simple word "pass", buried right down the bottom under "other uses". If we insist on having large numbers of meanings, can we at least move this one up near the top somehow?-- Kotniski ( talk) 11:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The usage and purpose of Passed ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Passed (band) -- 70.51.200.101 ( talk) 05:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation | ||||
|
(Continuing from Talk:Passing)
It seems to me that there are two kinds of cleanup that may be appropriate here:
I'll try to do a bit of the more mechanical cleanup (e.g., do the examples for "special ticket" really need to be a bulletized list?), but let's talk about the WP:WINAD question. Jordan Brown 03:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
A Pass can refer to:
Pass (surname) may refer to:
Passing or To pass can refer to:
Passing is also:
Similar terms:
That's about as tightly as I could see it being trimmed, but introduces a couple of red links that might not ever go anywhere. Pass (compiler) and Passing (law) would fudge out the red links. :) -- AliceJMarkham 06:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me, with the two fudges you list.
Perhaps PASS should move into the main list. Jordan Brown 19:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I found a few more nits, and I'm not entirely happy with the compiler meaning (but I can't come up with anything better), but I think our work here is pretty much done... good work! Jordan Brown 05:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
_ _ A colleague has tagged the accompanying Dab for Dab-CU. I am not going to touch it, bcz i find the overall reorganization of about 18 months ago to be a gross mistake, primarily in succumbing to the easy conflation of the noun "pass" and the essentially separate noun forms of the verb "to pass". The former Pass and Passing probably needed reorganizing in ways that would have benefited by the editors taking a viewpoint that considered each in light of the other, but the result should have been two Dab pages, each with a lk to the other:
and
Even if the page were not longer than a single screen (thereby presenting a needless impediment to the careful, the single page would still be a self-mockery in making the distinction, via a second intro line:
yet failing to put it on the
Passing page -- the page where the well-oriented user (the long-term phase of our typical users' experience) went initially, only to be redirected onto an omnibus page on which the information they sought is, unnecessarily, below the halfway point on the screen, and more than likely off the bottom of it.
_ _ It says at the bottom of every Dab page that everything on the page would be, in this case on
Pass, if it weren't for multiple topics having that as their otherwise most appropriate title. We don't tolerate verbs and adjectives as titles of articles (unless the topic is a work that has such a word or phrase as its title, or the article is not on the topic that part of speech names, but on the topic of the word or phrase itself, as with
fuck (not a Rdr to
Sexual intercourse) and
posh (not a Rdr to
luxury good). Yet this Dab page penalizes those who understand that and type "passing" when they are interested in the verb "to pass", for the accommodation of those who have not yet learned, from WP or professionally edited (print or online) encyclopedias, about the noun convention, or are looking more or less at random for ways to search for titles that use one word, without using the search box or an external search engine.
_ _ I would welcome the chance to put at least another 2¢ in if it turns out i'm not the only one who sees a problem.
--
Jerzy•
t
06:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I added some (actually quite a few) additional items and did some tidying, both of which have been reverted. I've restored them for the moment: can we now discuss?
The edit summary for the revert said:
All these new links are not apprpriate here - this page only for things known simply as "Pass", not everything with "Pass" in the name
I don't agree – a dab page is not just a list of synonyms, it is to help people find things they may look for by typing (in this case) "pass". Such things are not restricted to things known only by the single word. For example, imagine you want to look up a film you saw years ago, and could only remember that it was called "pass something" or "something pass". Similarly, what if you want to look up someone with the name "Pass"? For these and many other articles "pass" is exactly what you would type – and you'd be sorely disappointed if you only found things called "pass" and nothing else. Surely we should remember that no-one using a dab knows the full title of the page they want, or they wouldn't be here. The objective of a dab is not to keep the page short – if something is not here, people can't find it.
Secondly, how are the new links different from all the previously existing one where "pass" forms only part of the name?
Thirdly, if not all of the items do deserve to be included (which might well be possible), let's be discerning, not remove them wholesale.
Finally, another edit summary, about places with "Pass" in the name, was "there must be hundreds like them". Actually no: those were the only settlements I could find. There are hundreds of mountain passes – I did not include any of those, and they are dealt with by the link I've just added ( List of mountain passes). Not sure what to do about "sea passes" – it seems to be a Canadian and Alaskan term for passage or strait: there are quite a few, but I can't find a suitable list to link to. Richard New Forest ( talk) 15:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the list still needs trimming. The problem with having so many items is that it's hard for readers to find what they are most likely to be looking for. For example, we currently have Mountain pass, which is one of the main meanings of the simple word "pass", buried right down the bottom under "other uses". If we insist on having large numbers of meanings, can we at least move this one up near the top somehow?-- Kotniski ( talk) 11:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The usage and purpose of Passed ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Passed (band) -- 70.51.200.101 ( talk) 05:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)