Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 5

message: ====I think the guideline ought to remain as supporting one wikilink per line====
#grubber
#RoySmith
#Courtland 
#:-- How is this "vote" here when the last comment by this user indicates support of more relevant linking? - Centrx 16:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: comment: the guideline does allow more than one link because it is a guideline and can be justifiably violated, but it indicates that the norm should be one link per line.  I have changed the section name to reflect this Courtland 00:03, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
#mikka
#Centrx
#Quuxplusone (notice that the current practice is to use wikilinks where appropriate anyhow, MoS or not)
#Lowellian
# Hyacinth 08:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  A summary, by definition, contains the chief points or the sum and substance of a matter or the general idea briefly. The above list, however, was a tally of advocates on two sides, as though they were teams in a sporting event. Unlike a summary, such a tally holds no information on the process of the game, or its outcome. While in a sporting event looking at the familiar players on the team rosters might give someone an idea of the match up and who will prevail, here instead is a game in which the players may be unknown, and in which the team size is unlimited. Any one may join a team without any test of their fitness, for the only test in this game is the reasonable discussion that is not included in this "summary". A true summary provides a reader with an understanding of the substance of the matter without having to wade through the prologue of argument and counterargument. This "summary" holds no such information; what would be the disadvantage in deleting it? It is either a vote, which is preliminary, or it is absolutely useless. - Centrx 03:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text:  I'm not sure what you mean by breaking the organization of the comments. If you mean that this list of users on sides is to serve as a contents of which users support and oppose which arguments, that is different from a vote, but it still ignores all substantive discussion, where a binary categorization is inaccurate. How have I become unhelpful? I don't think I've attacked anyone, only various arguments, and dispassionately so. Further comments by me may be less useful without an overarching, discriminated structure to guide the discussion, but I don't see how the above "Summary" section has any use either. Creating such a propositional structure is something I will soon do, but I do admit it is a smaller and easier task to respond to individual comments than to synthesize all relevant discussion on the page and generate a formal proposal. I am clearly not opposed to any action; I have proposed positive changes and almost all rejoinders I have argued have been in opposition to keeping everything precisely as it is, that is, taking no action. - Centrx 00:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: #grubber
#RoySmith
#Courtland 
#:-- How is this "vote" here when the last comment by this user indicates support of more relevant linking? - Centrx 16:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I think the guideline ought to remain as supporting one wikilink per line

message: :comment: the guideline does allow more than one link because it is a guideline and can be justifiably violated, but it indicates that the norm should be one link per line.  I have changed the section name to reflect this Courtland 00:03, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
#mikka
#Centrx
#Quuxplusone (notice that the current practice is to use wikilinks where appropriate anyhow, MoS or not)
#Lowellian
# Hyacinth 08:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I think the guideline ought not support a norm of one wikilink per line

message: #Josh Parris
:: A summary, by definition, contains the chief points or the sum and substance of a matter or the general idea briefly. The above list, however, was a tally of advocates on two sides, as though they were teams in a sporting event. Unlike a summary, such a tally holds no information on the process of the game, or its outcome. While in a sporting event looking at the familiar players on the team rosters might give someone an idea of the match up and who will prevail, here instead is a game in which the players may be unknown, and in which the team size is unlimited. Any one may join a team without any test of their fitness, for the only test in this game is the reasonable discussion that is not included in this "summary". A true summary provides a reader with an understanding of the substance of the matter without having to wade through the prologue of argument and counterargument. This "summary" holds no such information; what would be the disadvantage in deleting it? It is either a vote, which is preliminary, or it is absolutely useless. - Centrx 03:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I think that this wasn't a vote, it was a ''summary'' for such a stupidly long discussion  - and votes ought to be signed and dated by the voters at the least rather than tallied by some third party

message: A vote listing of this sort is far too preliminary and not useful at this stage of discussion, where there are scarcely responses to main points. If the "voters" do not provide reason for their objection to proposals in the discussion, and one even admits not having read the discussion, the votes are meaningless. This is not a forum where a hasty decision is necessary, which would be the purpose of having a majority fiat when discussion is no where near resolved. There is plenty of time for actually resolving the issue, for this is a pretend vote and does not actually summate anything. This so-called "Summary" is rather a generalization of more subtle, and even unrelated areas of argument into a "do not change" and "change" camp, disregarding that there are many possible changes indicated in this discussion. It furthermore purports to categorize commenters into these general groups which, for their inane generality, make it seem that a person has so crystallized his thinking as to have reached a decision and classifies people without their consent; it even appears that one person is classified incorrectly. - Centrx 16:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure what you mean by breaking the organization of the comments. If you mean that this list of users on sides is to serve as a contents of which users support and oppose which arguments, that is different from a vote, but it still ignores all substantive discussion, where a binary categorization is inaccurate. How have I become unhelpful? I don't think I've attacked anyone, only various arguments, and dispassionately so. Further comments by me may be less useful without an overarching, discriminated structure to guide the discussion, but I don't see how the above "Summary" section has any use either. Creating such a propositional structure is something I will soon do, but I do admit it is a smaller and easier task to respond to individual comments than to synthesize all relevant discussion on the page and generate a formal proposal. I am clearly not opposed to any action; I have proposed positive changes and almost all rejoinders I have argued have been in opposition to keeping everything precisely as it is, that is, taking no action. - Centrx 00:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to such superficial voting