Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ubcule (talk | contribs) at 21:00, 20 December 2019 (The response given here was started before you reverted the page, and is how I would have responded otherwise. (I disagree that you have the right to revert the page like that. )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Disambiguation

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

Changes to Holmes and Watson (disambiguation)

(This discussion started as a comment left ThaddeusSholto's talk page. It has been moved here- the talk page of the article it relates to- by Ubcule in order to provide a more neutral venue for discussion). Ubcule (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there,

I notice you removed the links to the individual character names as the primary subject. I appreciate that this doesn't quite fit into the standard dab page format, but the pairing of Holmes and Watson- or the characters- *is* likely to be the "primary" use most people are looking for, even if there's not a specific article for it. IMHO this is one of those cases where (knowingly) overriding a guideline because it's likely to be useful is warranted.

If you can suggest a more appropriate solution, I'd definitely welcome it.

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ubcule: I don't understand why you felt the need to make Holmes and Watson (disambiguation). There is only one article with that title, Holmes & Watson. Technically Holmes & Watson. Madrid Days has that phrase in it but that isn't the title. As Help:Disambiguation says "Disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages are used as a process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article." This disabugation has one article with that title and three vaguely similar titles that would never be confused for "Holmes and Watson". To add such a long header that refers to something that is not the title of the disambugation page doesn't clear up confusion. It creates it. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation ("dab") pages aren't solely for literal, exactly-the-same names or terms.

As noted in the disambiguation guidelines notes, "a single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms." . It goes on to mention that (relevant here) this includes "variant forms of names. For example, Fred Smith also includes persons named Frederick Smith."

Sorry, but I'm not trying to Wikilawyer the wording of the guidelines here, quite the opposite- they say that for good reason, which I agree with. Dab pages are navigation aids intended to help people who don't necessarily know exactly what they're looking for.

There's a good chance that someone looking for (e.g.) that forty year old television series may probably remember it had Holmes and Watson in the title, but not necessarily which variant (e.g. full names or not) it included, and spreading the dab across multiple pages for minor variations (or not providing it at all) would be less useful.

Ubcule (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ubcule: It is a navigation page to help people find the specific article they were looking for with that term. It is not a directory page for people to use to find every single possible iteration of two terms. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That wasn't what it claimed to be.

Please re-read what I said above, assuming you read it in the first place:-

As noted in the disambiguation guidelines notes, "a single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms." . It goes on to mention that (relevant here) this includes "variant forms of names. For example, Fred Smith also includes persons named Frederick Smith."

As I said, this wasn't originally intended as Wikilawyering, but if you want to argue (your own idea of) what dab pages are for, this is what they (not I) say. Ubcule (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You don't appear to be paying attention to what I am saying or you just like fighting. Disambiguation pages aren't for listing every single possible iteration of two terms but are to alleviate confusion or ambiguity over similar terms. Putting a note that says "Holmes and Watson, Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson and similar combinations of the characters' names may also refer to:" doesn't achieve this as the disambiguation page is titled Holmes and Watson not Holmes, Watson, and other possible combinations. There are already links to this disambiguation page from similar articles such as Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson so if someone erroneously went there looking for Holmes & Watson they will still find it. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Variants of the same characters' names are similar- note "similar" and not "identical"- phrases and should- as per the guidelines I quoted- be more usefully grouped together in a single place rather than relying on a rat's nest of links.

If you think this is "fighting"- when I've tried to clearly explain my reasoning in good faith- this may say more about your feelings and approach than it does mine.

However, it's clear that continuing this discussion between the two of us alone is unlikely to be productive, and as I don't intend getting into a revert war, I will seek third party input. Ubcule (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ubcule: The simple and obvious solution was that I took one of your many redirects, Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (disambiguation), and made it a stand alone disamb page. Now Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) links to that to alleviate any confusion. Two disambiguation pages for two different sets of titles. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That appears to be organising things the way you wanted in the first place (i.e. *not* having similar but non-identical versions of the names grouped together).

I'm not sure why you think I'd consider it a "solution" (quite the opposite) as our disagreement on that was essentially the main basis of the entire dispute...!

FWIW, I've requested further input here. Ubcule (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ubcule: It is a solution in that two disamb pages for two different sets of terms will actually aid in helping people find the article they were wanting. You seem to have a personal issue with correcting confusion that nobody except for you would ever have (examples and .) 'Holmes and Watson refers to two articles and Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson to two different articles. There would never be confusion requiring one disamb page when two more specific ones are clearer. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Under other circumstances, I'd be happy to explain why I feel other people *might* confuse "Peter Hewitt" (an English film director) with "Peter Howitt" (an English film director). Or why "It's the way you make me feel" is likely to be confused with the other song's title.

But the truth is you aren't interested in that and this isn't relevant. You weren't going through my post history in good faith- you did so in an attempt to find something to use against me and bolster your own argument in this case, rather than addressing the guidelines I'd used to explain my side. In short, you're trying to make it personal.

As for the rest, you don't say anything above that you haven't said already.

"'Holmes and Watson refers to two articles and Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson to two different articles."

Means nothing beyond that being the way you want them organised (and have done so).

Anyway, as I already said, I think it would be more productive if we wait until there is some third party input into this matter. Ubcule (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ubcule: WP:AGF is good policy. Please don't presume to tell me what my intentions are. You have edit warred to reintroduce a "clarification" that isn't needed. You seem to believe that since you might be confused about something then we should put hatnotes all over the place. If you are going to attack me then please don't use this talk page anymore. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Criticism does not constitute an "attack", regardless of how much you wish to paint me as the aggressor. However I agree entirely that we need a more neutral venue for this discussion, and have moved it to Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation). Ubcule (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: Discussion was transferred to Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) by myself at this point. Ubcule (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@ThaddeusSholto:

• Yes, WP:AGF is widely considered to be a "good policy" here, but that usually goes without saying. Citing one of the most basic tenets of Misplaced Pages in a context such as this- i.e. a dispute between fairly experienced users- might be seen as a passive-aggressive attack. However, I'll assume that wan't your intent here.
• You're certainly welcome to clarify what your intentions were by linking those other (unrelated) disambiguation edits from my edit history if they weren't intended as a personal criticism of my approach to disambiguation.
• Reverting a single edit is not an example of "Misplaced Pages:Edit warring", no matter how much you may wish this were the case. ("An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." (Emphasis mine.)) But while we're on the subject, I'll point out that:

• I attempted to seek out third party input precisely *because* I had no desire to get involved in an edit war with you or anyone else discussion had reached an unproductive point with, and
• Following this, you can confirm via my posting history that I explicitly refrained from making any immediate reversions or changes to your edits- despite strongly disagreeing with them- in favour of waiting for the matter to be resolved before doing so. Odd for someone who you accuse of "edit warring".

• If you have an problems with my conduct (e.g. my criticism that you considered an "attack"), please address them through the usual channels for complaints. Thank you.

Ubcule (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• WikiProject Disambiguation pages