This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
I've changed "ambiguity" back to "equivocacy" in the first line of this article. Circular definitions are poor linguistics. People who don't know what "disambiguation" is won't know what "ambiguity" is either. For those people who don't know what "equivocacy" is, there's Wiktionary, Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, etc. Wikipedia is about the transmission of knowledge, not the flouting of logical liguistic practices in the name of "readability."
Birtweiser 17:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Birtweiser
I'm trying to figure out the best way to make a top link that heads in two directions, without creating a disambiguation page. In specific, Bros. It currently goes to the boy band, & links to Brös, which makes sense. It misses out on the sub-culture, Bros, however, & while all three are completely different topics, it seems that a disambiguation page might be a little much. Am I wrong in thinking that, & if not, how does one go about making a staggered disambiguation? I've seen doubles before (like Ariadne), but those were two different templates. -- mordicai. 17:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
How dominant is dominant? I'm curious because I'ms urprised to see that Richard Harris is about the actor with a separate dab page for other Richard Harris people. The listed reasons were because it was "more likely to be searhced" sa the other Harrises were deceased. Is that reasoning valid? Becuase of Harris' Harry Potter work, does he deserve the primary topic status? Hbdragon88 04:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't like the policy of always linking to the most common usage. I was just working on a case which brought into highlight why. Evolution (just plain evolution) is not about the origin of the species. It is a process of generating diverity, selecting on that diveristy, and passing on traits to the next generation. There are many examples of nonbiological evolution. I want to write an article on evolution (not just a disambig page, it would be an umbrella for topics ranging from modelling evolving systems to evolution in process philosophy). The curent article titled 'evolution' refers specifically to biological evolution. The confusion between evolution proper and biological evolution is a common one, but I don't think that Wikipedia should cater to it - rather Wikipedia should try to clarify it (that is, educate the user). So, I guess what I'm saying is that I think that the policy to always use the most common usage is fine except when the most common usage is wrong.- Psychohistorian 13:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like an interesting article; but we are here to serve the reader. Most people who type in "evolution" are looking for Darwinianism, and should get there. A reference in the header (as opposed to a dab link) may be the best way to provide the information that there is a wider meaning; we shouldn't force it on anybody. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Quick gathering of opinions: does Referee (disambiguation) need to exist? Neonumbers 04:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I've heard the term used in peer review, so it makes sense to have a way to find that article. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
there's currently a fierce debate over whether to move the article on the Apple iPhone to Apple iPhone. It's unambiguous, and if it's really the primary topic we can keep a redirect, so should an ambiguous name bbe preferred just because it's shorter by a word? Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 08:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
IPod is unambiguous. Apple Lisa and Apple Newton on the other hand... Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 18:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Would folks please take a look at talk:Moot to comment on the debate there. Is it legitimate for a disambig article include topics that have no articles? -- Concrete Cowboy 18:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I have been trying to find out how to make a dab page, but I find it tricky. So would anyone be so kind as to make a dab page for 'Stephen O'Brien'. There used to be only one but there are 2 now. (one a politician, the other a musician) The links are the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_O%27Brien
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_O%27Brien_%28musician%29
Many thanks in advance! —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Emmi1988 (
talk •
contribs) 10:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
I've been itching to propose {{ 2CC}}, {{ 3CC}}, et al for deletion. I see that it was proposed about a year ago, and that no consensus was reached. I'd like to revisit that decision in a friendlier forum than TfD.
Why do we need any disambiguation templates other than {{ disambig}}? If you really want to categorize n-letter combinations, you can make a category 3CC and add it to the appropriate dab pages. -- Smack ( talk) 19:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
On {{ redirect}} and the like, it would be nice if there were some sort of html "magic" that a user javascript (and maybe eventually a standard script perhaps controlled by preference) can automatically hide it if the page was not reached through the redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random832 ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
Speed (disambiguation): a colleague adds iitems like J. B. Speed School of Engineering claiming that it is called simple "speed" and refusing to provide references. I consider this a violation of the very basic wikipeida policies WP:Verifiability & WP:CITE. Please comment. `' mikka 16:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
There are two places in New Jersey called Society Hill, so I redirected Society Hill, New Jersey to the Society Hill disambiguation. Alansohn took offense and has changed it to a redirect to Society Hill, Middlesex County, New Jersey, where I moved it. Who is in the right here? -- NE2 22:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The subject Category is referred to by the documentation for the Otheruses templates 1 through 4 on their talk pages, for instance "We have lots of disambiguation templates already, see Category:Disambiguation and Redirection templates" on Template talk:Otheruses4. Please either:
Thanks! — Jeff G. 08:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
...has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Let.27s_clarify_with_the_various_CC_templates_once_and_for_all (goodness that is a long link!). Just in case you don't watch both pages, please add your opinions there! -- Natalya 00:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
After dealing with extensive debate over on the Settlement Convention page, a common millstone that pops up is the use of "Primary Topic". At its root, this seems to vague and subjective with nearly anyone being able to make an argument that one things is more primary then the other-like the recent Cork debates. But I think a broader problem is when there is a topic that more notable but several others with similar name that have relevant notability in their own right. Individual these "other topics" don't stack up against the "Primary topic" but collectively they do give a significant alternative search and linking topic. An example would be any name with a disambig page that has a laundry list of alternative topics of relevant notability like Chicago (disambiguation), Vancouver (disambiguation), Philadelphia (disambiguation) and Boston (disambiguation). As a whole, it seems like there is a culture of aversion to the use of disambig pages and to have the Primary topic be a disambig page. I think a large part of that is the way "Primary topic" is presented on this page and I would like to discuss and revisit it. Agne Cheese/ Wine 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the line that most concerns me under Primary Topic is the definition
This seems to convey that determining the Primary Topic is a "one on one" comparison with the other alternative usages rather then taking in the whole consideration of all the different alternative usages. I would like to propose a simple change to that first line to....
I think this simple change, coupled with Natalya previous addition, would help quell some of the dispute of which topic "wins the race" to be the Primary Topic. Is that a reasonable proposal?
Agne
Cheese/
Wine 20:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
I've changed "ambiguity" back to "equivocacy" in the first line of this article. Circular definitions are poor linguistics. People who don't know what "disambiguation" is won't know what "ambiguity" is either. For those people who don't know what "equivocacy" is, there's Wiktionary, Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, etc. Wikipedia is about the transmission of knowledge, not the flouting of logical liguistic practices in the name of "readability."
Birtweiser 17:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Birtweiser
I'm trying to figure out the best way to make a top link that heads in two directions, without creating a disambiguation page. In specific, Bros. It currently goes to the boy band, & links to Brös, which makes sense. It misses out on the sub-culture, Bros, however, & while all three are completely different topics, it seems that a disambiguation page might be a little much. Am I wrong in thinking that, & if not, how does one go about making a staggered disambiguation? I've seen doubles before (like Ariadne), but those were two different templates. -- mordicai. 17:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
How dominant is dominant? I'm curious because I'ms urprised to see that Richard Harris is about the actor with a separate dab page for other Richard Harris people. The listed reasons were because it was "more likely to be searhced" sa the other Harrises were deceased. Is that reasoning valid? Becuase of Harris' Harry Potter work, does he deserve the primary topic status? Hbdragon88 04:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't like the policy of always linking to the most common usage. I was just working on a case which brought into highlight why. Evolution (just plain evolution) is not about the origin of the species. It is a process of generating diverity, selecting on that diveristy, and passing on traits to the next generation. There are many examples of nonbiological evolution. I want to write an article on evolution (not just a disambig page, it would be an umbrella for topics ranging from modelling evolving systems to evolution in process philosophy). The curent article titled 'evolution' refers specifically to biological evolution. The confusion between evolution proper and biological evolution is a common one, but I don't think that Wikipedia should cater to it - rather Wikipedia should try to clarify it (that is, educate the user). So, I guess what I'm saying is that I think that the policy to always use the most common usage is fine except when the most common usage is wrong.- Psychohistorian 13:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like an interesting article; but we are here to serve the reader. Most people who type in "evolution" are looking for Darwinianism, and should get there. A reference in the header (as opposed to a dab link) may be the best way to provide the information that there is a wider meaning; we shouldn't force it on anybody. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Quick gathering of opinions: does Referee (disambiguation) need to exist? Neonumbers 04:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I've heard the term used in peer review, so it makes sense to have a way to find that article. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
there's currently a fierce debate over whether to move the article on the Apple iPhone to Apple iPhone. It's unambiguous, and if it's really the primary topic we can keep a redirect, so should an ambiguous name bbe preferred just because it's shorter by a word? Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 08:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
IPod is unambiguous. Apple Lisa and Apple Newton on the other hand... Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 18:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Would folks please take a look at talk:Moot to comment on the debate there. Is it legitimate for a disambig article include topics that have no articles? -- Concrete Cowboy 18:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I have been trying to find out how to make a dab page, but I find it tricky. So would anyone be so kind as to make a dab page for 'Stephen O'Brien'. There used to be only one but there are 2 now. (one a politician, the other a musician) The links are the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_O%27Brien
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_O%27Brien_%28musician%29
Many thanks in advance! —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Emmi1988 (
talk •
contribs) 10:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
I've been itching to propose {{ 2CC}}, {{ 3CC}}, et al for deletion. I see that it was proposed about a year ago, and that no consensus was reached. I'd like to revisit that decision in a friendlier forum than TfD.
Why do we need any disambiguation templates other than {{ disambig}}? If you really want to categorize n-letter combinations, you can make a category 3CC and add it to the appropriate dab pages. -- Smack ( talk) 19:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
On {{ redirect}} and the like, it would be nice if there were some sort of html "magic" that a user javascript (and maybe eventually a standard script perhaps controlled by preference) can automatically hide it if the page was not reached through the redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random832 ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
Speed (disambiguation): a colleague adds iitems like J. B. Speed School of Engineering claiming that it is called simple "speed" and refusing to provide references. I consider this a violation of the very basic wikipeida policies WP:Verifiability & WP:CITE. Please comment. `' mikka 16:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
There are two places in New Jersey called Society Hill, so I redirected Society Hill, New Jersey to the Society Hill disambiguation. Alansohn took offense and has changed it to a redirect to Society Hill, Middlesex County, New Jersey, where I moved it. Who is in the right here? -- NE2 22:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The subject Category is referred to by the documentation for the Otheruses templates 1 through 4 on their talk pages, for instance "We have lots of disambiguation templates already, see Category:Disambiguation and Redirection templates" on Template talk:Otheruses4. Please either:
Thanks! — Jeff G. 08:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
...has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Let.27s_clarify_with_the_various_CC_templates_once_and_for_all (goodness that is a long link!). Just in case you don't watch both pages, please add your opinions there! -- Natalya 00:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
After dealing with extensive debate over on the Settlement Convention page, a common millstone that pops up is the use of "Primary Topic". At its root, this seems to vague and subjective with nearly anyone being able to make an argument that one things is more primary then the other-like the recent Cork debates. But I think a broader problem is when there is a topic that more notable but several others with similar name that have relevant notability in their own right. Individual these "other topics" don't stack up against the "Primary topic" but collectively they do give a significant alternative search and linking topic. An example would be any name with a disambig page that has a laundry list of alternative topics of relevant notability like Chicago (disambiguation), Vancouver (disambiguation), Philadelphia (disambiguation) and Boston (disambiguation). As a whole, it seems like there is a culture of aversion to the use of disambig pages and to have the Primary topic be a disambig page. I think a large part of that is the way "Primary topic" is presented on this page and I would like to discuss and revisit it. Agne Cheese/ Wine 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the line that most concerns me under Primary Topic is the definition
This seems to convey that determining the Primary Topic is a "one on one" comparison with the other alternative usages rather then taking in the whole consideration of all the different alternative usages. I would like to propose a simple change to that first line to....
I think this simple change, coupled with Natalya previous addition, would help quell some of the dispute of which topic "wins the race" to be the Primary Topic. Is that a reasonable proposal?
Agne
Cheese/
Wine 20:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)