Talk:DNA/Archive 6

message: There is no need to protect this page since this page should be a disambiguation page. Bensaccount 18:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasons: 
#DNA has alternate meanings
#Deoxyribonucleic acid has just one meaning
#DNA is short for d(eoxyribo)n(ucleic) a(cid)
#The word deoxyribonucleic acid explains the structure of the molecule
-- Bensaccount
I admit the truth of the above facts, but fail to see what bearing they have on the question. I guess I wasn't clear on why it doesn't make a difference to me. From what I can see, there is little practical difference between the present setup and your proposed setup. Specifically, the very first (italicized) line in the article under the present setup informs readers of the existence of possible alternative meanings to "DNA" and gives them the link for more information. I don't understand what advantage accrues by changing the setup as you propose, but equivalently, no disadvantage will accrue, so I'm willing to make the change, provided no one expresses a substantive objection. -- Cyan 20:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Respectfully, I disagree.  98% of users who type in DNA (if not more) will be looking for this article.  What we are doing is letting the 2% of users looking for another article click twice (once to DNA, once to the disambigged page) instead of three times, and the cost is making 98% of users click twice (same as above) instead of once.  Deoxyribonucleic acid is not easy to remember or spell....hence, people will either link to DNA when writing new articles (necessitating a lot of fixing links, or just leaving it so people have to click twice) or they'll try to spell deoxyribonucleic acid in a piped link, which will be difficult and frustrating for even those of some scientific know-how.  This shift shouldn't happen, especially as it appears only one user is requesting it, and the many authors who've been here wrangling over this page seem agreed on the article's location, if nothing else. Jwrosenzweig 21:01, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Then Ben, you are misunderstanding.  You are being told that, because of the logistics of maintaining an encyclopedia and the desire to make information easily accessible to those accustomed to the common vernacular, the page should remain where it is. Jwrosenzweig 21:42, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I didn't stop you from finishing, if that comment is meant to rebuke me somehow for my earlier reply.  Ben, I don't know any scientist who doesn't abbreviate Deoxyribonucleic acid as DNA, and I know tons of people who only know it as DNA.  Since we tell them in the first sentence what DNA stands for, there isn't an issue with correctness.  It is far easier linkwise, and not incorrect factually, to leave the article here.  Hence it should stay, in my opinion (and Cyan's, unless I misread Cyan badly). Jwrosenzweig 21:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Ben, we are not trying to twist your words.  Please stop getting upset.  We are pointing out that, in our opinion, you have not shown that there is any compelling need to move this page, as it is accurate and clear to the point that an altered title would be of no use in clarifying the meaning of "DNA". Jwrosenzweig 22:33, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I apologize for upsetting you. It seems I communicated badly, inadvertently making it seem that you had said something you didn't. That was certainly not my intention. -- Cyan 22:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'll grant that.  I did feel it was important to note that the need for disambiguation was much slighter here than at other pages.  But if that's not Ben's argument, I'll leave this part of mine be, then. :) Jwrosenzweig 23:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Ben, I would submit that they continue to apply.  We're not supposed to aim at redirects.  We will still need to do all the work of shuffling links every time someone aims a link at DNA. Besides, our naming conventions are supposed to use the common name in the vernacular, which is indisputably DNA. Jwrosenzweig 23:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And please don't cut cons so drastically.  I've had to go back and add two that still apply.  It is especially important to be fair when you are cutting arguments raised by people who disagree with you -- cutting all the cons makes look as though you are not willing to discuss this, but want to delete and ignore the valid points that Cyan and I are raising. Jwrosenzweig 23:15, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to make DNA a redirect to deoxyribonucleic acid

message: of:
#moving DNA to Deoxyribonucleic acid
#making DNA a redirect page.
Pros:
#DNA is short for d(eoxyribo)n(ucleic) a(cid)
#The word deoxyribonucleic acid explains the structure of the molecule
#The people who dont know what DNA stands for will be redirected to deoxyribonucleic acid.
#If you decide to go with the redirect and keep the DNA (disambiguation) page, there is no difference in ease of use.
Cons:
# DNA is far more common than "deoxyribonucleic acid" in the vernacular, which is one of our guidelines for naming conventions.
# Precedent: among other examples, NASA is actually the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, but we specifically chose to put the article at NASA as the acronym is well known, and in far more common use than the full name.
----
Ben, it would help if you could explain how the present setup fails to adequately inform the reader that 
#DNA has alternate meanings and deoxyribonucleic acid has just one meaning
#DNA is short for d(eoxyribo)n(ucleic) a(cid)
#The word deoxyribonucleic acid explains the structure of the molecule
As far as I can see, these points are dealt with reasonably well (although not to the height of technical correctness) under the present setup.
-- Cyan 22:26, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben, we are not trying to twist your words.  Please stop getting upset.  We are pointing out that, in our opinion, you have not shown that there is any compelling need to move this page, as it is accurate and clear to the point that an altered title would be of no use in clarifying the meaning of "DNA". Jwrosenzweig 22:33, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I apologize for upsetting you. It seems I communicated badly, inadvertently making it seem that you had said something you didn't. That was certainly not my intention. -- Cyan 22:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'll grant that.  I did feel it was important to note that the need for disambiguation was much slighter here than at other pages.  But if that's not Ben's argument, I'll leave this part of mine be, then. :) Jwrosenzweig 23:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Ben, I would submit that they continue to apply.  We're not supposed to aim at redirects.  We will still need to do all the work of shuffling links every time someone aims a link at DNA. Besides, our naming conventions are supposed to use the common name in the vernacular, which is indisputably DNA. Jwrosenzweig 23:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And please don't cut cons so drastically.  I've had to go back and add two that still apply.  It is especially important to be fair when you are cutting arguments raised by people who disagree with you -- cutting all the cons makes look as though you are not willing to discuss this, but want to delete and ignore the valid points that Cyan and I are raising. Jwrosenzweig 23:15, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pros and cons