Talk:Real

message: Please move to Brazillian currency. Real has many other meanings. 66.245.95.157 21:44, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the previous Real page to Real %28currency%29 and created a new disambig page. All links now reflect this change. --VampWillow 01:23, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Title) 

message: Hi.  I've officially lost count of how many times I've cleared up this article because people just keep inserting the exact same links that already exist but using different words.  Real number ranks first, if I had left all the entries linking to this article, it would now account for half of an overly extended list.  So I have a reasonable request: people, please read the article (and check the links) before addind to the list, this is a typical case of editing without even knowing what's already in the article.  And let's remember that the disambiguation page is not supposed to explain the items listed in detail, it's supposed to just direct the reader to the actual "Real" article he may be trying to find, there he will find the detailed information in question.  Thanks. Redux 00:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you'll probably keep changing it until this meaning is more obvious. The "especifically in economics" is especially misleading (is especifically really a word?). Other disambiguation pages don't have the notion that every line has to start with the word, which makes them clearer and more useful. Also there is no point in putting dead links in disambiguation pages. Finally the "important" remark contradicts the manual Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Make comments invisible. Gadykozma 02:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry that you have found the page unclear, but I guess most users disagree, especially since quite a few people have been involved in writing this page.  What I have done is eliminate redundant entries and consolidate any new data (as I've done with your Imaginary numbers addition).  The fact that all the entries start with the word being disambiguated would appear to be either a coincidence or a result of people trying to make the article more clear (except maybe in your book), or maybe they were just following the lead of VampWillow, who started the page and wrote the first entries.  I fail to see how writing the same things over and over with different words helps the article to be more clear.  Since you thought that was a problem, I'm afraid you only added to the problem instead of fixing it.  As for the "important" remark, it was inserted as a temporary resort because there were tens of articles in which people used the word "real" as an adjective and mislinked it to the page that used to be here (until VampWillow moved it and created the disambiguation page), instead of linking it to the Reality article (if you had read the page's history, you'd know that).  Dead links are part of disambiguation pages, I've been to some where 80% of the links were red, and I don't see it as being pointless, since the entry points to another meaning of the word that we would otherwise ignore and creates the opportunity for  someone to take an interest and actually write an article approaching that specific meaning of the word.  And finally, concerning the word "especifically", which was the result of yet another anti-redundancy edit, Google it and you'll find quite a few entries for it.  Regards. Redux 12:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that adding duplicate entries makes the article clearer. I said that if the real numbers entry would have read "In mathematics, a real number is...", it would be more useful to readers and less work for you. As for especifically, you will find any mispel in google. Why don't you try http://m-w.com ? Finally, don't assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you it's because he didn't read something. It's just not true. Gadykozma 13:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, any effort to reword for clarity is certainly welcome, the problem is exactly that people are not doing that.  However did you conclude that I think that who's not with me is wrong?  Maybe it was I who wasn't clear enough, so here it goes: People keep writing duplicate entries, and that's not my opinion, that's a mere observation of facts;  What I did assume is that the reason why people do that is because they didn't take the time to read the article and check the links, which makes that an honest — although easily avoidable — mistake, and that really has nothing to do with whether or not people agree with any particular opinion of mine.  Otherwise it's just crazy, I mean, they saw that the entry already existed and still wrote another one?  Take your case for instance, you wrote a duplicate entry for Real number, so I suppose that you did it because you didn't notice that it was already there.  That's not the same as rewording, which according to your own line of thought, would have been the way to go if you really felt that the entry was that unclear.  So as I said before, you accidentally added to the problem instead of fixing it (if there's actually a problem).  Finally, the word "especifically" is broadly used and understood, which makes it rather useable according to modern linguistics (just like many terms related to computing and the internet), not a "mispel", which technically would be to write something like "corret" instead of "correct" (the noun "mispel", by the way, is not in the Webster's English Language Dictionary, which certainly doesn't mean that it's not really a word).  Regards, Redux 19:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please read before editing 

message: Why is the following at the bottom of the real article? It is a note for Wikipedia editors, and one of the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines is Avoid self-references. It is not an explicit self-reference, but it is a comment that only makes sense for Wikipedia editors. BlankVerse ∅ 5 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)
: I agree the note should not be there. Besides, it is ugly. The editors should be smart enough to figure out what to link to. Oleg Alexandrov 6 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)
::All right, I was the one who had created the note, so I've taken care of it.  I've turned it into one of those visible-only-when-editing notes to editors.  This had only been in the article because, back when this disambiguation page was created, a quick search of the website revealed an overwhealming quantity of mislinks.  Enough time has passed though, and with a disambig page, the problem is likely resolved.  I thought the notice was worth keeping though, although now visible only when editing.  Regards, Redux 6 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
:   That's called Avoid self-references, aka Self (JftR). And while the situation in question isn't what that guideline addresses, IMO they are indeed in the same spirit, and the outcome of that discussion is good.--Jerzy•t 19:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  note for Wikipedia editors? 

message: While grateful for being informed how many dumb Yanks (i am one of those too, FtR) don't think there's anything odd about Yank teams putting Real in their names, the proper page for that collection of clubs and teams is an SIA (titled, say, Sport organizations evoking "real"): A Dab is not an SIA, nor an SIA a Dab, and while there will probably always be SIA entries on Dab pages, replacing those entries from the accompanying Dab page with a single link is now on my personal to-do list.--Jerzy•t 19:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sport clubs 

message: This my dream, I hope I can do it well and deal with you Sosopp2006sudan (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singing 

message: Shouldn't Real be added to this page? 194.223.95.112 (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real (manga)