Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 13

message: I have just initiated a discussion of disambiguation at Talk:Ravi Shankar.  Although the immediate subject of the discussion is a particular article, I believe it touches upon the more general question of when an ambiguous title ought to point to a disambiguation page, and when it ought to point to the most article most likely to be intended.  --BostonMA 21:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Disambiguation at [[Talk:Ravi Shankar]]

message: In this morning's Doonesbury, the character Elias says, So, props, Bro.  Like I do with all bits of jargon/slang that I've never heard of, I typed props into the wikipedia search box, got to the prop page, and quickly found the to give proper respect meaning.  The dilemma is that this is a dict-def, and as such, doesn't belong on a dab page.  On the other hand, as I demonstrated to myself, it's a valuable entry, and it would be a shame to remove it.  The only conclusion I can come up with is that our no dict-defs rule should be changed.  Comments?  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a link to Wiktionary?  Though, when looking up "prop" in Wiktionary, it doesn't have the definition that you are referring to, and I'm not familiar with Wikitonary's guidelines of slang definitions. -- Natalya 14:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no dilemma, and no need for this definition of props in Wikipedia. Anyone who needs a definition of a word should look in Wiktionary, or any of a whole pile of online dictionaries. Anyone who looks for a word definition in an encyclopedia is likely to be disappointed, but that is not cause for changing the rules of Wikipedia. See WP:WINAD. Are you suggesting that Wiktionary should be discarded after dumping the entire contents of Wiktionary into Wikipedia, or that dic-defs should be maintained in both places, making twice the work? At any rate, the place to discuss this is on the talk page at WP:WINAD. Chris the speller 14:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was making the suggestion that since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a link could be put to the Wiktionary (which is a dictionary) entry. See Linking to Wiktionary.  However, it may be a moot point because the Wiktionary entry does not currently the definition in question.  Also, while Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is a source of information that many people come to, and even if the information is not on Wikipedia, there is no reason not to direct them to where the information is. -- Natalya 14:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a reason not to include a Wiktionary link, so I have put one on prop. Note that props does not have "to give proper respect", so you might want to add it there. Kusma (討論) 15:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" does NOT mean that a dab page (or any article for that matter) is forbidden to include a short definition of a term. Not a disctionary means that we do not get into all the details about usage, variants, etymology, etc.  older ≠ wiser 18:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But definitions ARE forbidden; the first sentence of WP:WINAD (which is official policy) states "an entry that consists of just a definition does not belong". I encourage the use of the wiktionarypar template, and so does MoS:DP. RoySmith has used the template correctly in this case, and has properly added the definition to Wiktionary. No rules had to be changed. Good work! Chris the speller 18:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the sentence you quote continues But, an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic. There is no problem with having a short definition on a dab page with a link to Wikitionary as well.  To invoke WP:WINAD as justification to remove ANY definition from a dab page is a gross misinterpretation of that policy. -- Though actually, in this particular case, since that particular slang is not exactly a common definition for the term, I agree that moving it to Wiktionary was probably for the best. older ≠ wiser 21:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dab pages are not, however, articles. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So? My only point is that we should avoid knee-jerk sorts of overly narrow and prescriptive guidance regarding whether a brief definition can appear on a dab page. There is no basis for declaring that a dab page cannot contain a brief definition. older ≠ wiser 02:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaking of overly narrow, may I suggest you stop indenting another tab on every reply? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that is common practice and what is recommended at Wikipedia:Talk pages. When things get too far indented, there's no problem in going back to the left margin. But in my browser at least, there appeared to be plenty of room. older ≠ wiser 02:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't equate official policy that seems to work with overly narrow guidance. An issue came up and was apparently well resolved without having to change the rules or break them. If anyone is still unhappy, I again invite a continuation of this discussion on the talk page at WP:WINAD, but I won't be accompanying you.  Chris the speller 02:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I certainly was not suggesting any change to WP:WINAD -- I think it is quite good the way it is -- and quite clear, especially when not quoted piecemeal. It does not provide any basis for saying that a dab page cannot contain a brief definition. older ≠ wiser 02:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We read the same sentence and come away with different understandings of it. Your posts have always seemed sensible until this case, so I assume you're not nuts, and I'm not nuts, so it must be the sentence. It makes no sense for us to wear each other down, considering how many disambig pages there are to fix. Happy editing! Chris the speller 03:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Props]] dilema 

message: I have discussed this before, but have wondered if it should be part of the styleguide for disambiguation. There are several styles for disambigauation and I find this the easiest to find what I am looking for: Divided into people, places and things. What do you think?
::unsigned comment by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) —Wahoofive (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I have reduced the headings below to H3 for ease of viewing and commenting on this page. Originally they were H2 headings —Wahoofive (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The Manual of Style for Disambiguation briefly refers to separating entries (see "Longer Lists"), but it does not go into such specifics.  In general, I think separating people and places in longer lists is a good idea.  However "Things" is a very broad topic, and for many disambiguation pages, all of the entires may be "things", and would therefore require more separation.  It is definitly a good idea to separate disambiguation links with longer lists, but it may often require more detailed separation.  Just as an example, take a look at the disambiguation page for Matrix (you could choose any dab page, really).  The entires are separated by science, technology, the arts, and other.  Most of the entires is all the categories are "things", so without more specification it probably would not be too helpful. -- Natalya 17:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100%. I am mostly involved with biography and geography so I only encounter the ones that fall easily into people places and things, and they tend to be very long lists. The older format was a single list with all the items bulleted alphabetically and sub bulleted for further diambiguation, and in this case their was no TOC.
--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I second Natalya's comment, and add that the things listed above simply don't belong on the same dab page. Would someone type in "Walker" expecting to find Junior Walker and the All Stars? Dab pages are not for free association. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: However I disagree that Junior Walker and the All Stars is free association. If it contains "walker" it belongs in the Walker category. If I were searching for that "Walker musician guy". I would go to the Walker disambiguation page. This type of disambiguation has almost always found what I was looking for when I had incomplete information for a search.
--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * They wouldn't be looking for Junior Walker and the All Stars but they might be looking for Junior Walker, and that article is where they'd find him. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this discussion should be moved to the MoS. Anyway, while we are on the subject of free association why are any people on this list? Is it reaosnable to expect that any of them should have their aritcle title as Walker?  I don't think so. A link to LoPbN is what should be implemented.--Commander Keane 18:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Both the massive list of people and shorter lists of people can coexist in perfect harmony. I have a problem loading the long lists even with my cable modem, maybe because I need more RAM. And, when I am disambiguating it is helpful to see all the categories together to figure out if the person meant to link to a person or a place or a thing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  People, Places and Things 

message: *Walker, Texas Ranger, U.S. television program
*Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker, a metric used in cosmology
*Hiram Walker, a Canadian distillery
*Jed Walker, a comic book character
*Junior Walker and the All Stars, a musical group
*Riddley Walker, a 1980 novel by Russell Hoban
*Walker Art Gallery, in Liverpool, UK
This is a disambiguation page: a list of articles associated with the same title.  If an internal link referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.
</div>
:The Manual of Style for Disambiguation briefly refers to separating entries (see "Longer Lists"), but it does not go into such specifics.  In general, I think separating people and places in longer lists is a good idea.  However "Things" is a very broad topic, and for many disambiguation pages, all of the entires may be "things", and would therefore require more separation.  It is definitly a good idea to separate disambiguation links with longer lists, but it may often require more detailed separation.  Just as an example, take a look at the disambiguation page for Matrix (you could choose any dab page, really).  The entires are separated by science, technology, the arts, and other.  Most of the entires is all the categories are "things", so without more specification it probably would not be too helpful. -- Natalya 17:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100%. I am mostly involved with biography and geography so I only encounter the ones that fall easily into people places and things, and they tend to be very long lists. The older format was a single list with all the items bulleted alphabetically and sub bulleted for further diambiguation, and in this case their was no TOC.
--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second Natalya's comment, and add that the things listed above simply don't belong on the same dab page. Would someone type in "Walker" expecting to find Junior Walker and the All Stars? Dab pages are not for free association. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: However I disagree that Junior Walker and the All Stars is free association. If it contains "walker" it belongs in the Walker category. If I were searching for that "Walker musician guy". I would go to the Walker disambiguation page. This type of disambiguation has almost always found what I was looking for when I had incomplete information for a search.
--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * They wouldn't be looking for Junior Walker and the All Stars but they might be looking for Junior Walker, and that article is where they'd find him. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this discussion should be moved to the MoS. Anyway, while we are on the subject of free association why are any people on this list? Is it reaosnable to expect that any of them should have their aritcle title as Walker?  I don't think so. A link to LoPbN is what should be implemented.--Commander Keane 18:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Both the massive list of people and shorter lists of people can coexist in perfect harmony. I have a problem loading the long lists even with my cable modem, maybe because I need more RAM. And, when I am disambiguating it is helpful to see all the categories together to figure out if the person meant to link to a person or a place or a thing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Things

message: Template:Interstatedis and a few redirects have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Interstatedis. Thank you.  Tedernst | talk 20:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Interstatedis 

message: *replace  with 
:Done --William Allen Simpson 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --William Allen Simpson 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Done --William Allen Simpson 04:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 25]] 

message: Bkonrad's finding caused me to look for more subcategories hidden away via incorrect sort tags and/or use of  in category space:
*:Category:Disambiguation categories
*:Category:County disambiguation
*:Category:Economics dabs
*:Category:Galaxy name disambiguations
*:Category:Mathematical disambiguation
*:Category:Star name disambiguations
*:Category:Subway station disambiguations
*:Category:Towns in Italy (disambiguation)
*:Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation &  
*
*
:--William Allen Simpson 06:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More categories and templates for later