Talk:Convertible (disambiguation)

Mistaken inclusions on this page beginning: Convertible, a type of cabriolet (carriage}

If you follow the link there is no use of the word convertible. So why is this mentioned?
IBM PC Convertible: if Armstrong Siddeley cars brought out a model called Typhoon (they did) should the word Typhoon mention the brand of car on a disambiguation page? And similarly Chevrolet Safari? (Safari disambig) And similarly Opel Olympia / Senator / Monza And similarly Volkswagen Bora / Touareg etc etc and so forth
Convertible (computer), Netvertible. a different language?

Eddaido (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ad 1) Yes, I have seen this as well, but the original hatnote at Convertible (car) explicitly mentioned it, therefore I thought it would be important to disambiguate this term in this context and kept it. Apparently, there was a carriage named Convertible, but perhaps this was just meant to further disambiguate Cabriolet and Coupé. I think, the reduced hatnote still serves this purpose, so we can remove this from the disambiguation page. I am, however, adding Cabriolet and Coupé under See also on the disambiguation page, since these terms are partially redirected here for disambiguation as well.
ad 2) Sure, that's the very purpose of disambiguation pages. This IBM machine is known as "the Convertible", therefore people will end up at this disambiguation page and need to be routed to the corresponding article. Actually, this was the main reason, why I moved the other article to Convertible (car) in order to make room for a proper disambiguation page (there were already three alternative meanings disambiguated in the hatnote in the original article - and otherwise I would have had to add another two). The same applies to your mentioned examples of Typhoon, Safari, etc., of course.
ad 3) No, a Convertible computer today is a mixture between a Tablet PC and a Notebook (for example, a Notebook with turnable display). A Netvertible (odd term, I know, but I haven't invented it) is a mixture of a Tablet and a Netbook, that is, a much smaller device. Both terms are mentioned in various places in other articles (and are in common use right now), there just was no article about the whole class so far. Please note, that per our MOS it is okay to have red links on disambiguation pages when the corresponding articles are likely to be created at a later stage and it helps to build the infrastructure for them. I gave the links to existing articles in the German WP in order to indicate notability and help other contributors find some building blocks for a start. Nevertheless, I have now created redirects to sections in other articles where the terms are discussed. At a later stage, they will most probably evolve into articles in their own right. The links to the German WP have been converted to proper inter-wiki links.

Greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes on the disambiguation page because an entry on this page alone was, I thought, unlikely to draw a response. I think the mention of an IBM convertible is just plain risible - it was an unsuccessful product briefly marketed almost Thirty years ago? (compare/contrast Olympia/Touareg) Perhaps that link and the other obscure, maybe a little less obscure —I don't know—use for the word convertible to do with computers might be added under their own Computers heading?

I also notice in the edit summaries "Readded link to Cabriolet (car) under See also (Same target as Convertible (car), but people don't know this beforehand, Cabrios & Coupé-Cabriolet redirect here". This brings up a related matter. You may know that limousine (car) can mean quite different things in different languages so it is necessary to make it clear (and surely the automatic assumption in the English WP has to be the English meaning—am I wrong?). So when linking Cabrios & Coupé-Cabriolet here the editor that did so must have been unaware of the correct meanings of those words.

So we move further into a world where words will need qualifiers to clarify their meaning because the true meaning is being lost by such actions. Grump grump, Eddaido (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any need to distinguish between carriage and car? Surely one developed from the other, they carry out the same function but employing different sources of energy. Eddaido (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the last question first, yes, for as long as we have two articles dealing with it. We could solve this by using a disambiguation page or primary/secondary disambiguation hatnote for Cabriolet, but only after removing the incoming links to variations of "Cabriolet" into this page. And, I think, we should first fix the many(!) other incoming links into this disambiguation page, since some of them may also have some form of Cabriolet or Coupé as their true target.

Can you tell with certainty if "Cabrios" and Coupé-Cabriolet should redirect to either Cabriolet (car) or Cabriolet (carriage)? I cannot, but I'm not into cars and carriages at all.

That having said, people are different. You made it clear that you do not care about the IBM Convertible and the class of computers named Convertibles today, whereas I find them both important (and the IBM machine even more so as a historical milestone, whereas the new class of computers is just a class of "consumer mass products" for me), and, I'm afraid, I don't care about cars (they are just "consumables" for me), and therefore Olympia or Touareg don't mean much to me. I don't think there is a "true meaning" of the word Convertible. Different people mean different things by it, and therefore we have to disambiguate between them. Other than that it creates a bit of work to sort out the incoming links right now, I don't see where a proper disambiguation between the different meanings creates a problem. Actually, it should have been done much earlier, so we would have less work now.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am supporting having these on the disambiguation page, after all that is is what it is there for. Obscure topics need to be findable if there is a Wikipedia page on them. Convertible is a very generic term. I think you will find even more meanings are out there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The adjective turned noun (convertible) is easily defined for cars (or anything else) but the clarity is going (for example—encouraged by IBM using it as a model name for a marketing error). Coupé and cabriolet are easily defined but the precision is now lost as the result of much misuse which Wikipedia should be helping with rather than cultivating and spreading the misuse the way it is. So you want black to be some kind of a dark grey and white to be a very pale grey because that's the way you like it. You're welcome. Eddaido (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat baffled by your response and, I'm afraid, I can't follow you. (I really try, because, by all means, the last thing I wanted to do is hurt another editor, but I really don't see how the disambiguation of multiple meanings could have been avoided. We certainly could not add another two or more meanings to the hatnote in Convertible (car), which listed three alternative meanings already.) Where do you see precision go? People, who were looking for the class of cars, will still find this information under Convertible (car) unchanged. The other concerns you raise appear to be a much more general problem (if a problem at all), nothing specific to this disambiguation page. Therefore, I don't see how to help you here, unfortunately.

On a different note, you seem to be knowledgable about cars, therefore we could certainly need your help going through the long list of incoming links and fix them to bypass this disambiguation page, where the target is clear. This may also help resolve your remark about precision. Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled as to why you close a note or comment with a greeting. The use of convertible for a type of IBM computer is seriously obscure, its like a disambiguation page for the word blue having a link to tell us IBM office machinery was often coloured blue.

"A much more general problem" yes, but "(if a problem at all)" Yikes!

I'd have thought someone who could use more than one language might have long recognised that problem or does that very ability lead to this strange acceptance of vagueness and uncertainty? People with limited vocabulary (obviously not you) are obliged to use vague approximate words not knowing the correct words. The effect of Wikipedia's requirements is to incorporate the result of those gropings as if they were accurate. This exacerbation by Wikipedia is what I lament. I'll be interested to see how you sort out the consequential changes. Eddaido (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]