→Disambiguation pages are navigation pages: I think that in discussions of the purpose and scope of disambiguation pages, we tend to lose sight of the fact that there are now over ''160,000'' of these pages. |
→Disambiguation pages are navigation pages: Disagree with "as concisely written as possible" |
||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
::: I think that in discussions of the purpose and scope of disambiguation pages, we tend to lose sight of the fact that there are now over ''160,000'' of these pages. Any global change to their purpose must be made 160,000 times, which would be a massive undertaking. The purpose of disambiguation pages can neatly be summed up "a page to help a reader find the topic they are seeking, when it shares its name with several other topics". Of course, it ''is'' a navigational device (and a purely navigational device, not an end to itself); looking at a page like [[James Smith (disambiguation)|James Smith]], we want to include ''just enough'' information to help a reader find the John Smith they had in mind. We don't want to include more than that, because including more information about ''other'' people named James Smith makes it harder to find any particular James Smith. We could have a whole paragraph on each James Smith, with all concepts mentioned in that paragraph fully linked, and the reader would get lost in that sea of information and never find what they are looking for. Of course, all of the information about the particular James Smith they seek ''should'' be at the article on that particular James Smith, and need not be repeated elsewhere. Therefore, both disambiguation ''and'' navigation require that our disambiguation pages be as concisely written as possible. [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 23:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC) |
::: I think that in discussions of the purpose and scope of disambiguation pages, we tend to lose sight of the fact that there are now over ''160,000'' of these pages. Any global change to their purpose must be made 160,000 times, which would be a massive undertaking. The purpose of disambiguation pages can neatly be summed up "a page to help a reader find the topic they are seeking, when it shares its name with several other topics". Of course, it ''is'' a navigational device (and a purely navigational device, not an end to itself); looking at a page like [[James Smith (disambiguation)|James Smith]], we want to include ''just enough'' information to help a reader find the John Smith they had in mind. We don't want to include more than that, because including more information about ''other'' people named James Smith makes it harder to find any particular James Smith. We could have a whole paragraph on each James Smith, with all concepts mentioned in that paragraph fully linked, and the reader would get lost in that sea of information and never find what they are looking for. Of course, all of the information about the particular James Smith they seek ''should'' be at the article on that particular James Smith, and need not be repeated elsewhere. Therefore, both disambiguation ''and'' navigation require that our disambiguation pages be as concisely written as possible. [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 23:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::: Disagree with "as concisely written as possible". Sounds like fanaticism. Concise writing is always preferred, no need to repeat it. Prefer: Each entry should be no longer than one line on the standard output. Standard output should be the A4 PDF printout (single column, just noticed DAB paged rendering in two-column). Sometimes, a second blue link is worth including. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:14, 30 March 2015
Disambiguation | ||||
|
This dab page spin-off appears to have existed for around 8 years, and I've never seen a similar one. Victoria (disambiguation) isn't particularly large, certainly not in the same league as some of the longest dab pages, so I see no justification for splitting off geographical articles in this manner; it's just a hindrance to the reader looking for one of them.
Is there a precedent for this sort of thing? —Xezbeth (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe combine Victoria (geographical disambiguation) and List of places named after Queen Victoria into a single List of places named Victoria or similar, and remove entries in the Places section of Victoria? Pol098 (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Are there places named "Victoria" that are not named for the queen? bd2412 T 15:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- WP:INCDAB. Merge Victoria (geographical disambiguation) to Victoria (disambiguation) per that. A few incoming to fix. Widefox; talk 15:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- @BD2412: Yes (Spanish for "Victory"), and also places named for Queen Victoria which don't include the word "Victoria"! The "List of places... " is a list but not a dab page. I think the placenames should probably be included in the general dab page, though it will become quite a size - but that's why it has a clickable table of contents, so people can skip to relevant sections. I suggest that the list of partial-title-match dab pages such as Victoria Island (disambiguation), currently the first section of the geographical dab page, would be more useful to readers if it was included as a final "Places: see also" sub-section within the "Places" section, rather than in the "See also" at the very end of the dab page, though that might need a bit of WP:IAR. PamD 16:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Are there places named "Victoria" that are not named for the queen? bd2412 T 15:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I went ahead and merged it, removed some partial title matches in the process, and the end result isn't even that big. I left List of places named after Queen Victoria alone since that isn't a dab page in the first place. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Separate disambiguation pages for plural vs singular
Not sure if there's a clear guideline for this, but I'm wondering if there's a point where enough articles have the plural version of a term that it would be better navigation-wise to create a separate disambiguation page for the plural, rather than redirecting it to the singular, which then has a top note link to the regular disambiguation page. —Torchiest talkedits 13:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Proposed redirecting "Lohengrin (opera)" to "Lohengrin (Wagner)"
It has been proposed that "Lohengrin (opera)" should redirect to "Lohengrin (Wagner)". The alternative is to redirect it to "Lohengrin (disambiguation)". While most have heard of the famous classic opera Lohengrin (Wagner), there exists another opera called Lohengrin that is not well-known: Lohengrin (Sciarrino). It is safe to assume by all concerned that most who consult or edit Wikipedia, when encountering or creating a link to "Lohengrin (opera)", will at first believe the link will take them to the well-known favourite written in 1850 by the great German composer Richard Wagner thinking it to be the only Lohengrin opera, although of course those who are searching for the little-known short contemporary piece written in 1982 by Salvatore Sciarrino need to be accommodated also. Because it is generally believed to be more helpful to the vast majority of readers and editors, this proposal is being put forward. But please consider that the alternative to this proposal would be to follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Incomplete disambiguation, which state that a link to "Lohengrin (opera)", an incomplete disambiguation, should instead take the reader to Lohengrin (disambiguation), where the reader can choose which Lohengrin they want. Those who support this proposal believe that the middle step is unhelpful and will cause an unnecessary burden for most people looking for the major work, and that the few looking for the minor work will still be able to find it. Those who oppose this proposal believe that popularity is irrelevant, that the guidelines must be respected and should not be willfully ignored, regardless of any additional effort this causes. Ideally, the outcome of this discussion would either clarify or amend Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Incomplete disambiguation so other similar disagreements will be better-informed by established consensus in the future. Note that, if necessary, a Wikipedia:Hatnote can be placed at the top of both Lohengrin opera articles directing to the other article. Please reply with your Support or your Oppose and hopefully we will see a consensus! Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Incomplete disambiguation section update
I will soon update the Incomplete disambiguation section to give an exception to what is stated there, according to what was decided in the following discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Lohengrin (opera). Currently the section begins, "When a more specific title is still ambiguous ... it should redirect back to the main disambiguation page". This is a good guideline and makes sense for most incomplete disambiguations, in which two or more articles exist that could be described by the incomplete disambiguation (example: "Honey (album)"). The exception, however, will state that "this does not apply if one of two subjects is quite well known and the other is almost completely unknown. In such a case, the incomplete disambiguation should direct to the more notable subject, as it would be a disservice not to." (The discussion was over "Lohengrin (opera)", in which there exists the classic opera and a nearly unknown contemporary short work.) If there are no objections, this will be done within the coming week. Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- That is not really an WP:INCOMPDAB issue at all, but a primary redirect issue. The point of "incomplete disambiguation" is that we should not have a disambiguation page at the title "Honey (album)"; if the term is ambiguous, then it should be a section in Honey (disambiguation). It says nothing about what to do if there is a primary "Honey (album)" among several albums named "Honey" (although albums are a bad example for this, because of decisions specific to the music project that have them always disambiguated). A comparable case would be George Washington (president); although there have been several men named "George Washington" who were "president" of something, if this redirect existed it would point to the one who was "President of the United States". bd2412 T 22:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- BD2412, thank-you for this information. My note came about after an editor attempted to move an article that was the primary "Lohengrin (opera)" of two Lohengrin operas and who cited this guideline as justification (they wanted "Lohengrin (opera)" to point to disambiguation rather than point to, or actually be the name of, the primary Lohengrin opera). After consensus voiced that this would be a disservice, the editor suggested that this guideline be amended. But you do not think so? Your example sounds to be exactly the situation I described: "George Washington (president)" should point to or actually be the name of the one who was President of the United States and ignore all other articles about presidents named George Washington as it would be a disservice not to; it should not point to "George Washington (disambiguation)", as the editor thought this guideline states. Prhartcom (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
In the current condition of the "WP:Disambiguation" page there are 8 instances of content containing "navigat" and 290 uses of content containing "disambig".
In contrast a search on:
- article navigation -Wikipedia gets "About 555,000,000 results"
while a search on:
- article disambiguation -Wikipedia only gets "About 490,000 results
The ratio is >1000:1
As a result of, I think, a misguided focus on disambiguation I think that Wikipedia regularly slips into WP:BUREAUCRACY often neglecting the role of a WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA to provide valuable WP:DESCRIPTION.
The result, IMO, is that editors can often favour emphasis on dissection rather than on presentation of subject descriptions.
For reference please refer to Web navigation and any relevant content at Disambiguation (disambiguation).
In the current state of the "WP:Disambiguation" page there are only 17 instances of content containing "descri" and I think that, to an extent, we can miss the point. I suggest a refocus of this content and would encourage editors to put some thought into this. GregKaye 10:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- So you think WP:Disambiguation has "a misguided focus on disambiguation" ?! Perhaps if you propose a specific change it will be clearer what you're getting at. DexDor (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, because statistics reflect "quantity", not "quality", so I wonder what qualitative conclusions may be drawn from these quantitative ones? – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 23:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think that in discussions of the purpose and scope of disambiguation pages, we tend to lose sight of the fact that there are now over 160,000 of these pages. Any global change to their purpose must be made 160,000 times, which would be a massive undertaking. The purpose of disambiguation pages can neatly be summed up "a page to help a reader find the topic they are seeking, when it shares its name with several other topics". Of course, it is a navigational device (and a purely navigational device, not an end to itself); looking at a page like James Smith, we want to include just enough information to help a reader find the John Smith they had in mind. We don't want to include more than that, because including more information about other people named James Smith makes it harder to find any particular James Smith. We could have a whole paragraph on each James Smith, with all concepts mentioned in that paragraph fully linked, and the reader would get lost in that sea of information and never find what they are looking for. Of course, all of the information about the particular James Smith they seek should be at the article on that particular James Smith, and need not be repeated elsewhere. Therefore, both disambiguation and navigation require that our disambiguation pages be as concisely written as possible. bd2412 T 23:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree with "as concisely written as possible". Sounds like fanaticism. Concise writing is always preferred, no need to repeat it. Prefer: Each entry should be no longer than one line on the standard output. Standard output should be the A4 PDF printout (single column, just noticed DAB paged rendering in two-column). Sometimes, a second blue link is worth including. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think that in discussions of the purpose and scope of disambiguation pages, we tend to lose sight of the fact that there are now over 160,000 of these pages. Any global change to their purpose must be made 160,000 times, which would be a massive undertaking. The purpose of disambiguation pages can neatly be summed up "a page to help a reader find the topic they are seeking, when it shares its name with several other topics". Of course, it is a navigational device (and a purely navigational device, not an end to itself); looking at a page like James Smith, we want to include just enough information to help a reader find the John Smith they had in mind. We don't want to include more than that, because including more information about other people named James Smith makes it harder to find any particular James Smith. We could have a whole paragraph on each James Smith, with all concepts mentioned in that paragraph fully linked, and the reader would get lost in that sea of information and never find what they are looking for. Of course, all of the information about the particular James Smith they seek should be at the article on that particular James Smith, and need not be repeated elsewhere. Therefore, both disambiguation and navigation require that our disambiguation pages be as concisely written as possible. bd2412 T 23:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)