Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 28

message: I feel the work to building a dab page for Grass Valley would be too much for me... Any of you savy coders want to help? --Travisthurston 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Is that better?  Please help to point links on Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Grass_Valley to the proper articles, if you would....  — Catherine\talk 00:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sweet! You're awesome! --Travisthurston 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help DABing topic [[Grass Valley]] 

message: What to do with Tobias? should this mostly go to Tobias (name)? -- Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's two possibilities. 1) As you suggest, move most of the content to Tobias (name) and make Tobias into a pure disambiguation page. 2) Leave most of the content as is and move the other uses to Tobias (disambiguation)--this would then allow you yto simplify the hatnote at Tobias. I'd be inclined towards option 2, but I doubt there'd be too much opposition to using option 1. older ≠ wiser 12:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tobias 

message: "Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the information they want quickly and easily. These pages aren't for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article."
:This statement might reflect the reading patterns of some, but it is not at all indicative of my own.  Disambiguation pages are, to this reader, more than just a way to find a page that you're specifically looking for. They also serve an important purpose for those browsing the Wikipedia. Compact, single-link one-line definitions of the terms included are appropriate, but should convey some real meaning.
"The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link."
:I agree that the descriptions should be kept short, but to keep them so short as to only allow a reader who knows what she/he's looking for to "find the correct link" does a great disservice to those who simply wish to browse.  I would argue that the descriptions should carry real meaning, enough to be relevant to readers unfamiliar with the topic.  MrZaiustalk 13:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I disagree.  There are "List of ..." articles for that kind of browsing (and they could be linked from other articles to encourage exploration); disambiguation pages serve a different purpose: disambiguation. -- JHunterJ 12:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also believe that disambiguation pages should be aimed exclusively at disambiguation.  They are entry points into the Wiki and should be efficient for quick navigation.  Those "simply browsing" can do so from the article(s) themselves - they are not in such a rush.  Any candidate "extra" bluelink on a dab page would and should be linked on the article's page, providing a richer browsing experience from there. (John User:Jwy talk) 14:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not for exploration? Nonsense!

message: There are many reasons why the logic expressed by some in the comments above are incorrect.
:1.  Nobody is going to just type π or Π in the Wikipedia search box.  We simply don't usually have either character on our keyboards, for one reason.  It will happen so very unfrequently that we don't need to worry about it.
:2.  Some people will copy and paste either π or Π into the Wikipedia search box.  This is much more likely to happen.
::*But since, as pointed out above, most people know what π is as a number, the ones who do this are likely to be the ones who have run into something unfamiliar, either:
:::*The uppercase Π, or
:::*Some use of the lowercase π for a different purpose
::*The disambiguation page would be the best first destination in either case.
::*Granted, there will also be a significant number who know about the number but want to know what it actually is to several places, or want to know what the current record is for the number of places to which it has been calculated, etc.  But it is better to let them use two clicks to get where they want to go, with the second one immediately obvious to them, than it is to force someone who is already befuddled by the usage he or she has run across to first determine that this long article is of no help, then to first find (notes like that often get ignored at first glance, even if it is the first thing to pass before one's eyes) and then follow the link at the top to a disambiguation page.
:3.  People will link to π or Π in articles.
::*But when this is done, it would be good for someone to review those links to make sure they are going to the right place.
::*This review is more likely to happen when the links are to a disambiguation page.  There are editors who look for disambiguation pages with lots of links, and who then go and try to reduce the number of links to a disambiguation page by disambiguating them with direct links. 
:::*That is less likely to happen when the links are to an article which is not a disambiguation page
:::*It is especially less likely to happen when the "What links here" to that article has hundreds of direct links, so few people are likely to notice a link through a redirect.
Because of our keyboards, and because of the initial capitalization in Wikipedia discussed above,  all of the above result in completely different things to take into account when considering the Greek letter symbol than when considering the English word "pi". Gene Nygaard 15:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming that the most common usage is the one people already know and so shouldn't be the redirect target is, at best, strange. The Greek wikipedia redirects el:π to el:Πι, which maps back to the English Pi (letter), so that would be a good reason for π to redirect to Pi (letter) in the English wikipedia (although the most common meanings could certainly be different in English and Greek). But, as I pointed out when this first came up, it isn't a topic for disambiguation page style (this page).  It should (still) be discussed on the WP:D WP:R talk page. -- JHunterJ 19:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a one-to-one mapping in any logical sense between articles in different wikipedias (in the interwiki links, you can only go "to" one, and it may not be a perfect fit (might be either broader or narrower, and often is one or the other), but interwiki links to one English Wikipedia article can come "from" many articles in any one other Wikipedia).  The Greek page at the spelled out word serves the functions of both Pi (disambiguation) and part of the function of  Pi (letter) here on the English Wikipedia.   Gene Nygaard 05:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This should (still) be discussed on the WP:R talk page. -- JHunterJ 19:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Π should go to disambiguation rather than article about number

message: Please help me to talk to the senses of a fan of the "Igor" name disambig page. `'mikkanarxi 03:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a Talk:Igor page for such discussions; that would be a better place to start.  But I think removing the lists of people with a name is the minority opinion. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Hndis needs its own Manual, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen (surname), Talk:Jennifer. -- JHunterJ 11:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Igor