Talk:8 (disambiguation)

Organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages

Dear Colleagues,

There is an ongoing discussion on the organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages.

Your comments would be much appreciated!! Please see and participate in:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Organization_of_number_pages

Thank you for your participation!

Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose reverting this page to previous version

It appears that all the changes since [1] violate WP:DAB, MOS:DAB and WP:D3 most egregiously. I propose reverting to this version as a stable platform for improvement in line with these guidelines and the rationale for disambiguation pages. --MegaSloth (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

revert done to avoid someone doing it by hand. --MegaSloth (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with recent edits

Recent edits to this page by PolarYukon appear to fail to follow disambiguation guidelines in the following areas:

Primary topic: Initial references to primary topics have been removed. This page has two; 8 and Eight. These should appear at the top per MOS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic
Images and templates: should only be used on DAB pages if "they aid in selecting between articles on the particular search term in question". The infobox and large image of an 8 do not fulfil this function. Also the link to Wikimedia Commons appears to fall under this category. MOS:DAB#Images and templates
Individual entries: "Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context". Articles such as August and 8 BC are examples of links that should not be included. From a quick overview, my impression is most of the additions are in this category. WP:DABNOT
Linking: "Each bulleted entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link", MOS:DAB#Individual entries
Piping: "Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages". Pipes such as [[8|8, the year 8 CE]] do not qualify under the exceptions; MOS:DAB#Piping and redirects
Categorisation: sections such as "Television" and "Sports" are too small. "Very small sections may impede navigation, and should usually be avoided" MOS:DAB#Organizing long lists by subject

More minor issues

Preamble: does not use the formula "may refer to" (should be "may also refer to" once primary topics are restored) per MOS:DAB#Introductory line
Table of contents: Usually right justified per MOS:DAB#Organizing long lists by subject
Order: "entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article" (MOS:DAB#Order of entries). This is not prescriptively alphabetical order as PolarYukon seems to insist upon.

Unless these apparent variations from the disambiguation guidelines can be reasonably justified with due regard to consensus, these changes should be reverted, retaining any additional entries that should be included. --MegaSloth (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, please see my comments below:

Primary topic: this is indeed listed at the top of the page (8 8th etc)

Images and templates: no images are being used on the page. An infobox has been added to aid navigation. this is used on other DAB pages; please see C36 for an example.

Individual entries: I agree August could be removed. I don't agree that 8 BC should be removed.

Linking: most entries have one blue link. A few might need to be adjusted by hand.

Piping: piping is only currently used to clarify the destination article. Alternatively, the piping could be removed with the descriptive adjective placed after a comma

Categorization: we can gladly combine any sections you find to be too small.

More minor issues

Preamble: the preamble seems readable, but can be adjusted if needed.

Table of contents: in this case, the guideline is just a guideline. The layout works better in this case with the TOC on the left.

Order: alphabetical order seems to make sense here; do you have another solution for consistent ordering?

The DAB guidelines are guidelines, not rules. We should include whatever follows consensus common sense (WP:COMMON), which is good for the article and for the Wikipedia readers. Also, please see WP:IAR.

I have proposed we develop a more specific guideline for number disambiguation pages, to deal with their unique attributes, but no one has commented on this yet. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Organization_of_number_pages.

If we do end up with some variations from the guidelines, don't panic! Variations, where they make sense, are intended to happen on Wikipedia. Please see WP:COMMON, WP:BURO, and WP:IAR.

Thank you, PolarYukon (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the wrong project. Matters of style and content of disambiguation pages are handled by WP:Wikiproject Disambiguation. Any changes to current guidelines should be discussed there. 8 (disambiguation) does not fall under Wikiproject Numbers any more than 8 (2008 film) or Eight (rowing). Until such variations have agreement beyond a single editor at a tangentially connected wikiproject , we should stick to the current guidelines.

For the record, I do not see any need to develop separate guidelines for number disambiguation pages. Perhaps you need to create a new kind of page with a different name that meets any needs specific to numbers? --MegaSloth (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is all quite fine; the discussion thread was opened in the "wrong" place by another editor. The discussion has been crosslinked to WP:Wikiproject Disambiguation. What about the specific list of boldface items above which we are discussing? Cheers, PolarYukon (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry I failed to see they weren't my original edit as they weren't indented. My apologies. I have taken the liberty of indenting your comments (with no other changes) to assist others reading. My response is simple. Perhaps the "image" is in fact an 8 in an egregiously large font size and shaded. It looks like an image and is still inappropriate. On all issues with the partial exception of the table of contents, I maintain that my original comments were correct and are amply supported by the guidelines I linked. With regard to the table of contents, you are correct it is not in any sense binding, while current usage overwhelmingly favours right justification, I will leave that issue aside without conceding it to concentrate on the more important matters. --MegaSloth (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Understood; however it seems we are at an impasse until additional opinions arrive from neutral editors. Cheers, PolarYukon (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts. The infobox is unnecessary. There is little or no reason to expect that a person arriving at the disambiguation page for 8 will want to browse disambiguation pages for other numbers. At the most, such an artifact might belong under see also, but certainly not at the top of the page.

I think August does belong, as it is very commonly indicated by "8" or "08". Alpha order is fine, but there is no need to repeat the hiddent instruction throughout. older ≠ wiser 02:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why you disagree with me???

These two OSes should be included in this page. Why you always delete it??? Applist (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the operating systems are not known as "8" and it is not likely that any reader of the encyclopedia wanting information on them would search under "8" and find themselves on this dab page. Just as we don't include "series 8" of every soap opera, or the 8th edition of a book. PamD 07:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal Okrugs of Saint Petersburg

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#Municipal Okrugs of Saint Petersburg for a centralized discusion as to whether Municipal Okrugs of Saint Petersburg should be included in these pages. Certes (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]