Talk:Enclosure (disambiguation)

message: There's a pretty strong case for moving this to Inclosure eg the eighteenth century Inclosure Acts. Given that there are several other definitions of enclosure that could be added I think it should be moved. adamsan  11:52, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought until I did a bit of research.  For the usage of this article, Inclosure is the right term.  That's the name of the Acts, and the term used in authoritative documentation.  Enclosure is correct in many usages, but not for this topic.  Noisy | Talk 23:55, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Jebus. Can someone explain what the benefit of creating an enclosure (disambig) page is when enclosure was already doing the job perfectly well? And then redirecting the now empty enclosure page to inclosure? adamsan  01:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I've moved it back as the links haven;t been changed to take the move into account and I can't be bothered to change them all again. adamsan  20:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope discussions 

message: Much of the above reads like the talk page for Enclosure -- not for Enclosure (disambiguation), which is what the current title Talk:Enclosure (disambiguation) asserts. This deserves a bit of research in the history page(s), and probably either a rename to, or merge with, another talk page. And probably a lk (NOT a Rdr) to this content from Talk:Enclosure (disambiguation). --Jerzy•t 02:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of this talk page 

message: (moved from my talk)
Is there no 'guideline-friendly' way to list the different types of 'enclosure' wikipedia describes? : in going through references to the word enclosure, I found many mis-links (including for example one from an article about a boeing plane about an 'enclosure' of some component involved in a failiure), and subtle ones relating where it's not quite clear if it's a physical object such as a wall or the 'legal process of ...' mentioned in the main enclosure article. they look highly ambiguous to me because they're often in 'historical-place' related articles. I sense what i'm really after is a 'search index' and yes I know the guidelines state 'a disambiguation page is not a search index' but it seems to me these pages can perform this function, they should (these 'mis-links' wouldn't have happened if enclosure itself was the disambiguation), so it seems like it's the best place to list *everything*. I had also tried moving a subset off to another place ('animal enclosure') but that also met resistance. MfortyoneA (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:MfortyoneA please discuss your edits here to reach consensus for them. If you have a disambiguation wide question, rather than this dab, then the talk page of WP:MOSDAB or the dab project etc are the right places not here. Widefox; talk 16:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

text: We don't need a list here of every posssible use of enclosure, nor do most uses in articles need links. The page is probably too long already. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, it was a WP:PTM mess before. I'm almost done cleaning it... Widefox; talk 17:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Widefox; talk 19:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Further cleaning of WP:PTM of entries not solely known as "enclosure" but often are a type of enclosure without a bolded alternative title of "enclosure". The link to the category covers readers looking for examples for animals, although I've listed that at the dab project to ask for more opinions on the validity of category links. Widefox; talk 00:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types