Talk:Democracy (disambiguation)

Archive 1 - archive of all Talk through June 2006

Major page revamp

With encouragement from at least two other editors, I've moved the list of democracy articles to List of democracy articles, leaving a standard disambiguation page here. Hopefully the list can be converted into a more useful guide, perhaps organized by categories, or inspire better overview article(s) than democracy (varieties). - David Oberst 17:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where has this discussion and encouragement taken place? BruceHallman 17:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. I was just thinking today that perhaps List of democracy articles and democracy (varieties) could eventually be merged into Kinds of democracy (or something like that). — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how eliminating 95% of the disambibuation links serves a purpose to disambiguate? BruceHallman 19:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term we're disambiguating is "democracy", not "(qualified) democracy". Directing to a list of democracy articles or varieties/kinds of democracy is sufficient. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Oberst and Stevietheman. --Usgnus 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can find some common ground and find a compromise? Do we agree that 'democracy' is an ambiguous term? BruceHallman 19:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that ambiguousness is taken care of. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usgnus, for clarity, could you restate what you believe? I would like to understand your belief. BruceHallman 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The different kinds of democracy and related articles belong on a separate page and not on the disambiguation page, which is primarily for readers and editors to find pages after searching for "democracy". For example, I find it hard to believe that people would search for "democracy" when they are looking for sortition. --Usgnus 19:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with sortition, why do you favor deleting all the others? Also, why do you support 'forking' the ambiguity off to a POV fork article?

Here's an example for you: Death (disambiguation) does not have links to murder, suicide, accidental death, Black Death, Wrongful death. To me, these are related topics that people are not searching for when they type in "Death". Similarly, many of the articles at List of democracy articles, unless they are general types of democracy, should be in a regular (non-disambiguation) article explaining democracy: a sub-article of democracy, perhaps.

If you have a problem with 'many' why delete them all? Which do you have a problem with? (besides sortition) BruceHallman 20:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be easier to show you than explain on the talk page. Please feel free to revert. --Usgnus 20:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally approve of your compromise, and disagree only a little. Please allow me some time to think and phrase my comments. Though, quickly said, (for instance) many people in the World live in democracy of the Westminster system, when they think 'democracy' they are indeed thinking of that type; and need help with disambiguation BruceHallman 20:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevietheman, please explain. Your summary statement leaves me guessing. BruceHallman 19:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article fully disambiguates the term. There's no requirement that every last extension of the term appear on this page. We point to the list of democracy articles. That is sufficient. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not come close to fully disambiguating the term. 95% of the disambiguations were deleted. BruceHallman 19:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the disambiguation off is akin to POV forking, and that is bad editorial practice. BruceHallman 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce, I think you still have an incorrect conception of what disambig pages do on Wikipedia. They don't list all major articles associated with the term, but articles that reasonably could be given that specific term as a title. Thus "democracy" should point to the main democracy article as a political concept, which in turn is responsible for spawning subarticles, "see also"s, etc. If it doesn't, the fault is there, not here. As an example, the Freedom page links to freedom (philosophy) and freedom (political), as those are two separate strands of articles, while the ones here were in effect democracy (political). Note also that it doesn't link to specific articles such as individual freedom. Another example is Parliament (disambiguation), which links to the Parliament article, but not Parliament of Canada, Parliament of the United Kingdom, etc. Frankly, the "History" and "Varieties" link aren't really disambig candidates either, especially since they are one the included template, and "List" is something of a kludge. The existing "Varieties" article is a little goofy, and perhaps a major rewrite with "List" could provide a good jumping-off point. However, the wildly varying type and consequence of the many "... democracy" articles makes organizing a major task. - David Oberst 20:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Oberst, I just read what you wrote twice. I am trying to understand your criteria for inclusion in the disambiguation page. I disagree with your 'specific term in the title' criteria. The criteria should actually be: Is there potential ambigutiy for some readers. BruceHallman 20:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've quoted from MOS:DAB in the (lengthy) previous discussion, and given specific, on-point examples ("Parliament", "Freedom") of good disambig pages not being a list of "... term" articles. I'm not making this up, nor I think proposing anything other than well-established practice. The previous content wasn't disambiguation, and is still available (and linked) to give assistance in its new location, leaving a proper page here. Win-win, it would seem. I can't see anything about "... democracy" needing special handling here. Do you have any good examples of disambig pages doing something similar to what was here before? - David Oberst 21:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, it's interesting to note BruceHallman's participation in Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the face of overwhelming cited evidence and argumentation, and his lack thereof, he persists in his narrow, one-person-minority argumentation. Since there is a pattern here, I'm wondering if there is another avenue we could take here with regards to resolving this dispute. I just want to do what's best for the Wikipedia, and I think it's abundantly clear that you know what you're talking about, versus the one-person-minority. Thanks. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, please, lets try to play nice here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and no one should be belittled for it.

I fully concur with David Oberst statement above. It is possibly the most well-phrased explanation of why including all of the various "democracy" articles is not appopriate for this disambiguation page. However, I will try to add a couple more points that will hopefully seal the deal.

Take a look at MoS:DP#Examples of individual entries that should not be created. Though the example is not quite the same, it is a very similar case. Specifically, if there is a disambiguation page "Foo", articles named "Foo [insert any term here]" do not necessarily belong directly on that disambiguation page.
From WP:D: Criteria for including something on a disambiguation page: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result? Think about this for a second. If someone is looking for an article on a specific type of democracy, the first possibility is that they type the name of the article and they get to it. Great. The second possibility, if they do not know the name of the type of democracy they are looking for, is to just search for the term "democracy". That brings them to this page, where they can easily be directed to either Democracy (varieties) or List of democracy articles. Since the disambiguation page is so easily navigated, they are able to reach the place where they can search for whatever type of democracy they are looking for, without getting mixed in with all the other various democracy-articles not related to the government. It is very unlikely that someone will think "Hmm... I'd really like some information on a Market democracy, but instead of searching for that term, which I already know, I think I'll just search for 'Democracy' instead."

I hope that my explanation, along with David Obersts, have helped everyone to understand why all the democracy articles do not belong on this page. Having worked with many disambiguation pages, I, and many others, have found that the best disambiguation pages are those that are simple, straightforward, and to the point. -- Nataly a 02:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my wording wasn't the best, but getting to an understanding about how somebody argues is not belittling them, it is instead something that helps us draw this to a resolute close. I think there is substantive evidence that Mr. Hallman likes argument that extends past a reasonable point, to put it in the nicest terms. And extended argumentation on the same points over and over again is not beneficial to the Wikipedia, in my estimation. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute

I see a neutrality problem with eliminating 95% of the disambiguations, and added a NPOV box to signifiy this is disagreed. Stevietheman deleted the box doing nothing to resolve the disagreement. Please explain how the dispute has been resolved? BruceHallman 19:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no POV. Therefore, the tag is unwarranted. There is no "taking sides" with moving all the qualified democracy terms off to a separate page. I'm getting the feeling that you are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, and that doesn't serve any good purposes. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are POV's. One POV is that there are ambiguous terms to be disambiguated. Another POV, there are not. BruceHallman 19:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already fully explained my position. If you want to further argue, have fun with others, I suppose. However, I will work with others to protect the article as it now stands. Further, you are the only one in the Wikipedia universe that currently holds the POV that you hold. That POV has nothing to do with the concept of article POV. Again, discuss with others, as my position is crystal clear. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to find a way to collaborate with you, but that is difficult if you will not discuss, and if you silently 'protect the article' as you wrote you intend to do. Neither of us own the article, we really should try to 'get along' and co-edit it. BruceHallman 20:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid at this point that we require mediation. Your position is in a minority of one. And the rest of us shouldn't have to keep re-arguing the same things over and over again--we have other things to do. I will accept mediation, as no point you have brought up is anywhere close to being within what I would call reason. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose mediation. I also think that we can be reasonable enough to resolve our dispute without that help. For instance, can we try to reach an agreement as to the criteria for inclusion on this disambiguation page? BruceHallman 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I have to assume not-so-good faith, as you reverted the article back again, against the vehement disagreement of all other editors. That is generally seen as incorrect behavior in the Wikipedia. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not 'revert back again', I am trying to find and negotiate a compromise. I welcome and largely approve of the recently compromised page offered by Usgnus. BruceHallman

Yes, you indeed did do that. Just because what you reverted to the latest time was a wee bit off what you reverted to before makes no excuses for what you did. I am afraid this is more evidence that you are being argumentative and not just settling with the majority who supports a reasonable traditional approach to this article. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to understand your reasoning as to which articles to include on the disambiguation page, and you write that you favor a 'reasonable traditional approach'. That criteria is hard for me to understand as it is based on several apparently personal assumptions which you hold. BruceHallman 21:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Democracy (disambiguation)
[edit]

There is an ongoing dispute about POV and the correctness of moving "(qualified) term" mentions to a separate article. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion in the disambiguation page

Perhaps if we would discuss the criteria to use for inclusion on the disambiguation page we could find agreement? I believe the criteria should actually be: Is there potential ambigutiy for a subset of readers who might benefit from disambiguation. BruceHallman 20:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What David Oberst 20:40, 31 July 2006 said. His position is the primest example of a perfect response that you ever should expect to receive on the matter. I think the case is virtually closed, and this is now somewhat an obvious matter. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Oberst's 20:40 reasoning requires that the word 'democracy' be in the title. One, that reasoning appears to be arbitrary and non-standard. Two, that is not the criteria he used in his 'major revamp' and some explaination appears to be needed. BruceHallman 21:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of all but one has decided what to do in this matter. But we can wait for further comments via the RFC and see what happens. I feel I have already adequately explained in multiple previous responses why your oft-repeated but never agreed with position is incorrect here in the Wikipedia. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I believe that disambiguation pages are meant to resolve potential ambiguity. You describe my belief as 'incorrect here in the Wikipedia'. BruceHallman 22:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read your prior responses, and you never have answered my question (in a way that doesn't require mindreading), as to what critera you believe should be used. I am sure that if we can negotiate and agree on what criteria to use, we then can resolve our dispute. BruceHallman 22:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to David Oberst and Natalya, who have been much more articulate than I could be on this issue. I will no longer personally discuss this with you. I honestly believe you already understand what the majority position is and why it is. It's time to let this one go. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll link to the section above with my statement, because it addresses this issue. -- Nataly a 02:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a dabpage

This should a disambiguation page, using the guidelines at WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. What it should not be is a list of every type of democracy - that is covered within the democracy and democracy (varieties) articles. This page is just a navigational aid... /wangi 22:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was the basis of my recent revision (diff), as opposed to what was here previously (diff) and Usgnus's refactored version (diff), which you chopped down to create your edit (diff). I've reverted to my earlier revamp from this morning, which is similar to what you wound up with but has the "List" link which points to the previous content, and some minor wording changes. - David Oberst 22:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, a comment I really should make is the discussion above is pretty hard going and disjointed - somebody coming from RfC or the notice board trying to help out... Well, it's the deep end. /wangi 22:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you wangi, I agree with you that this page should be just a disambiguation page. I don't understand why so many disambiguation links need to be deleted out, ignoring genuine ambiguity. David Oberst, would you please explain why you insist on deleting so many links? Democracy, in truth, is not a 'tidy' thing. In some parts of the World, when people think 'democracy' they are imagining something different than people in other parts of the World. The role of disambigution for 'democracy' involves trying to understand and serve these global readers. Our duty here is to accomodate the global, not less. A short disambiguation page, with an illusion that something ambiguous can be made tidy, suffers from Systemic bias. Indeed, wars have been fought over ambiguity over the meaning of the word. BruceHallman 14:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disambiguation page, not a list of democracy topics. The first four links on the page link people expecting to read about a type of government or decision making process. Thank you mam, they're directed to where they intended to go. The rest of the page tries to match up what other folk are expecting to find when they enter democracy... and remember too that the primary topic page is at democracy, this dabpage is just a quiet corner - most folk looking want to be at democracy and they get there without ever seeing this page. Thanks/wangi 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want this page to be a list of democracy topics. It is simply wrong for people to restate what I want and then fallaciously dismiss me. Also, it is wrong to simply deny that we have a disagreement by deleting the POV dispute box. It would be much better to discuss the points of disagreement and find a resolution. BruceHallman 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this criteria for inclusion "When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result?" Deletion of 95% of the links far exceeds that critera. BruceHallman 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't - the current democracy articles listed cover the topic, there is no need to duplicate a large ammout of content from them here. Are you really trying to say that people, for example, search for "democracy", come across the main article, ignore it, click on the dab link when they're actually looking for specific articles such as representative democracy, direct democracy, or even Soviet democracy? /wangi 18:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I really believe that some readers, when they think 'democracy' are actually thinking of a type of democracy better covered in another Wikipedia article besides democracy. BruceHallman 18:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would make this page perfect

While there are no POV issues or anything major that is out of whack with what a disambig page should be, I note two remaining, minor issues:

History of democracy is probably not a proper disambiguation of 'democracy', as a history of a term isn't really a disambiguation. This would make a great, very pertinent "See also" however.
Democracy (varieties) and List of democracy articles should be merged into Kinds of democracy. "Kinds of democracy" (as a whole and not its parts!!!) is an obvious disambiguation of 'democracy'.

— Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are presently four items for the 'political/social' type of democracy. The first being the self referential Democracy, the second History of democracy doesn't meet the 'When a reader presses GO' test. And for numbers 3 & 4 you now suggest that we merge them? Ironic, I think. Because, without any entries to resolve ambiguity, I guess, editors must believe that there is no ambiguity with the search term 'democracy'? If not, please explain the lack of 'political/social' disambiguation links. BruceHallman 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said already, what's currently here provides full disambiguation coverage. What I'm talking about in this thread is what will make that coverage more concise. There's no need for an extended list of all variations of "political/social" democracy on this page. That's what other pages are for. Perhaps one day you will provide us one example of a disambiguation page that meets your individual opinion on what they should be. Barring that, this disambiguation page is designed in the same manner all other such pages are designed. Again, I defer to John Oberst's and Natalya's comprehensive explanations. That will have to suffice. Perhaps you will want to start a wider discussion about what disambiguation pages should be, but this certainly isn't the venue for that. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie, agree with both points - there is a lot of common content between those two articles and it'd be much better if it were merged. I have added merge tags to each article (and renamed the list one in the process), see: Talk:List of types of democracy#Merge Democracy (varieties) into List of types of democracy. Thanks/wangi 18:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Thanks! — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly would have no problem removing all three of the links - none of them are actual disambiguations. "History" is just a subarticle of the main article, and the other two are some sort of "helpful guide" sorts of things it. I've added "List" to the standard democracy template for now.

Bruce, this could go around in circles forever. If you feel that your concept of "ambiguous" should replace the existing Wikipedia practice, then as Stevie says this isn't the place. Otherwise, please feel free to assume we are all somewhat dense, and/or your prose isn't clear enough for us. In that case, there should be numerous clear examples of other disambiguation pages to counter mine above. Short of this, I'll summarily support the current consensus. - David Oberst 18:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that my concept of ambiguous is different than the existing Wikipedia practice. I am willing to whittle down the original list of thirty to some compromise greater than the three you propose. Are you willing to compromise? BruceHallman 19:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise that selects some qualified democracy terms over others? That's not POV? When I originally drafted this page, I thought I would select the few most applicable qualified terms that people might be looking for. However, with my current understanding, I now know this was incorrect. We're guiding the user to two pages (that will probably be merged) that shows them all the qualified democracy terms. Nothing is being hid from anyone. Therefore, the problems you imagine that would be healed by compromise don't exist, and your band-aid will only prime this page for future conflict. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie - you started this page? Now we have a scapegoat... :) - David Oberst 19:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you willing to compromise? And do I beat my wife? At the (intended?) risk of seeming like an unreasonable ogre, no, I don't support adding back more links (and would support removing the existing History/List ones). As far as I can see, this is a fairly straight-forward case, with examples, precedents, consensus, and not specific to the term. To go on from here, bring forward persuasive example dab-pages, or make a case at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation and encourage a horde of experts to come and correct our error. - David Oberst 19:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is inappropriate

This page should not have {{NPOV}} tagged onto it - doing so really begs the question if the person adding the tag has even read WP:NPOV and WP:DAB. If they feel the absolute need to add a template and air the dirty washing for the public to see then {{Missing information}} is much more suitable. Thanks/wangi 17:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any question that there is a dispute here? Deleting the tag, without addressing the dispute is like sweeping dirt under a rug. BruceHallman 18:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to get a sore head here... Read WP:NPOV - it's not about the dispute you have here... You want more links on the dabpage, you want more content, {{Missing information}} is much more appropriate, don't you think? Tell me, what point of view do you think the dabpage (it's not an article) is pusshing? /wangi 18:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I see this as a 'neutrality' issue is that at the core, I strongly suspect that this dispute is actually a dispute over ownership of the word and the concept 'democracy'. Though, after repeated trying, I have yet to succeed in convincing certain editors to even engage in a discussion of this issue. BruceHallman 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're at the wrong page then - if you think the democracy article is biased and does not cover all bases neutrally then please feel free to discuss (and stick a NPOV) there. The democracy article should be an unbiased overview of all types of democracy - it should be the first port of call should anyone simply search for "democracy", using Wikipedia:Summary style to give an overview of the specific types. /wangi 18:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sense that this question will never get answered, but here goes: What explcitly and concisely is the POV issue? This is why there has been no discussion on it--what you are calling a POV dispute is invalid until you explain what the POV dispute is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevietheman (talk • contribs) 2006-08-01 19:48:42

One point of view, 'democracy' is an clear cut nearly absoute concept, not very ambiguous, and is covered just fine in one article, Democracy. Another point of view, 'democracy' is very much ambiguous, a relative and fluid concept which varies between people (and is addressed elsewhere in Wikipedia besides the Democracy article). A neutral point between these two extremes would include more than three disambiguation links. BruceHallman 18:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've just explained that your POV issue is with democracy, not this disambiguation page. This page distinguishes between uses of the word democracy, and it links to democracy, which is supposed to provide the overall political/social coverage (with sub-articles) that you're looking for. If it doesn't, I wouldn't disagree with you placing an NPOV tag there. It's not the job of this dab page to list all the subdivisions and viewpoints about what democracy is in a political/social context. It just isn't. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me then. The two points of view at odds here relate to how we disambiguate the search term 'democracy'. One POV argues that all readers intend to find only one of the dozens of Wikipedia articles describing democracy, namely, the Democracy article. And, that Wikipedia readers never intend to search for the dozens of other Wikipedia democracy articles when they use the search term 'democracy'. Sorry, that point of view is to simplistic to be credible with a topic as complex as 'democracy'. BruceHallman 20:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just proved my interpretation correct. Your problem is with democracy, not this dab page. It's not the job of this page to parse out what you want it to parse out. Nobody is questioning whether the topic of democracy is complex, and that's why we say that the overview article, democracy is the article charged with handling your concerns. I honestly don't see why you can't get this. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BruceHallman's point is hard for me to understand, but I think he is trying to say something like this. Democracies only pretend to allow the people to vote. Actually, the word is meaningless stage dressing, and a more appropriate disambiguations page would redirects to articles such as hypocricy, realpolitik, and evil. I'm just guessing, though, because he really has not made his point in a way that is clear to me. Rick Norwood 19:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick, I think most of us would sympathize with the idea that democracy means many things in reality, and has many subdivisions of thought in political/social contexts. There's probably no issue with that thought. But the problem is that the Wikipedia, as of this moment, is not set up to encapsulate such thoughts in disambiguation pages. It rather strives to be somewhat close to a standard encyclopedia, and therefore, the disambiguations are expected to be concisely restrained to consider variations only of the plain term. Luckily, we have articles that go down many of the various avenues for discussing what democracy is and can be in various contexts. And these things aren't hidden from anyone. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevietheman, I appreciate your conciliatory attitude, thanks. The mandated critera, from WP:D, must be: "When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result?" That criteria is the criteria we should apply. Deleting out 95% of the links falls short of this mandate. BruceHallman 20:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've already been through this. The page *already* does that. If they're looking for a qualified democracy term, BAM, there's a link to Democracy (varieties) and List of types of democracy. Why are you so intent to create a special promotion of a select set of qualified democracy terms? Recall that this page is really a dark corner of Wikipedia (as "Term (disambiguation)" pages are), and most users will find what they need in democracy or its links to sub-articles. I have yet to see what the problem is. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your concept of (as you wrote) 'qualified democracy' implicitly in contrast to real pure democracy reveals the foundation of our different POV's. I disagree that all readers share your view of democracy. BruceHallman 20:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been clear for a long while now that you are either 1) POV pushing (as you seem to desperately want to get your favored items into this page), or 2) arguing for the sake of argument. You know full well when I say "qualified democracy" that I mean the English term qualifier, and thus mean a variety of democracy, not necessarily any less or more pure than what you are imagining. This is getting really ridiculous. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be fair to say there's consensus on removing the NPOV tag from the dabpage? /wangi 20:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen anything in the Wikipedia more fair than that. All we have is Bruce standing behind it, and he still won't provide a valid rationale for the tag. It needs to go. We can't keep going in circles like this. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, I have identified two valid points of view that are in dispute. BruceHallman 20:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could accept something like that but I find the name 'List of types of democracy' title misleading. More accurate would be 'Wikipedia democracy articles'. But, I don't see how isolating that article is much different than POV forking, and that should be avoided. Fundamentally, different readers have different conceptions of what democracy is, and the search term 'democracy' means different things to different readers, we should honor that fact. BruceHallman 20:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such an article name would be a needless self-reference, see WP:ASR. I still clearly beleive you're problem is not really with this page, but rather the democracy article itself, and that's also what users'll hit first in a search. /wangi 20:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All readers are not imagining the Democracy article when they use the search term 'democracy'. BruceHallman 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, yes they are. If the overview article doesn't provide them with the refined viewpoint they're looking for, they go to a sub-page or the varieties article to explore further. I'm really at a loss why this is so hard to understand. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no POV forking, as this dab page provides readers a direct line to what they're looking for. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two paragraphs above you describe 'most cases', acknowledging that in other cases some readers are exceptions. I am glad that you now acknowledge that some readers are seeking another article besides the Democracy article when they use the search term 'democracy'. BruceHallman 20:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet in the next paragraph you state that (all) readers (have) a direct line (by clicking the indirect link to a page which has been forked off). A direct line would be a direct link on the DAB page, not one page away. BruceHallman 20:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, lets remove the tag from the page, take time out and then have a read through things tomorrow - sound fair? /wangi 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I think it's fair. But not everyone is playing fair. Hrmmmm. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce, you are arguing for the fun of argument. That's all I can assume at this time. Your position is utterly baseless from any perspective I can imagine. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair would be: 1) Agreeing on a criteria to use for inclusion of links on the disambiguation page. 2) Following that criteria. Deleting the POV box before we do that is not fair. BruceHallman 21:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would the active editors here please clearly state their criteria for inclusion on the disambiguation page? Natalya did so above dated 02:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC), and I accept that criteria. Do the other editors accept that criteria? BruceHallman 21:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, I would agree to remove the POV box if we fall back to this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%28disambiguation%29&oldid=64196613 compromise offered by the editor Usgnus. BruceHallman 21:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said that what David Oberst laid out as criteria for inclusion was the best way of stating my own conclusions. There's no need to go in this circle again. And no, I will not accept this fallback. It is not in compliance with the current overwhelming consensus, and it looks *nothing* like other dab pages. We have a page of types of democracy and a page of varieties of democracy--there's your list, and it's not a "POV fork" by your imagining. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce, you are violating Wikipedia:3RR. I think that you should self revert your latest edit.Ultramarine 21:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do agree to give this a rest for 24 hours. Perhaps some elapsed time will give clarity and help resolve the dispute. BruceHallman 21:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is still there as of now. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie, would be fine for you to remove it/wangi 22:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to point out, this page is located at Democracy (disambiguation), meaning that Democracy is the primary topic anyway. When someone hits "Go" for 'democracy', this is not even the first page they will come to. -- Nataly a 22:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. General consensus (not explicit policy though as there is no such thing really here) says that the disambiguation page should be at Democracy whilst the current democracy content should be somewhere like Democracy (overview).

Anyway as to waht is included in a disamb page; a list of types of democracy should not be included. Taken from the WP:D page this is very clear

Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion).

Instead the list of types should be at Types of democracy (diambiguation) (without the link to Democracy that is at the top already as this will be in the main disambig page) and linked to from this disamb page. The page Democracy (varieties) should have the sections split up and merged into their relevant related democracy pages.

The other entries in Democracy (disambiguation) are fie as they are meeting the criteria.

That is how I interpret the guidelines anyway. :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 12:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: democracy, I tend to look more at how things are done in practice. As a Wikipedia editor for 2 1/2 years, what I've seen is that when somebody types in something like "democracy", they are expecting to go straight to an overview article on the political/social version of democracy, as that is the overwhelmingly prevailing version. This also happens for 'Louisville', which goes directly to Louisville, Kentucky. I think this approach is rational. I think where your understanding comes into play is when the various versions of a term are somewhat equivalent in their prevalance, such as for New Albany.

Regarding Types of democracy (disambiguation), I'm not clear why that needs to be disambiguated, as would there be separate lists of types of democracy? I can't imagine that. At any rate, if I have any ideas about that subject, I'll post them in the talk for List of types of democracy. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Missing Information" tag

Does anybody have a problem with the addition of a {{Missing information}} tag, as suggested by wangi yesterday? BruceHallman 18:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This tag would be unwarranted in my opinion. I don't know of anything that is missing. Recall that this is a disambiguation page, not a regular article. And what dab pages do has already been explained ad nauseum (and I will not be engaging any longer on that consensus-decided issue). However, I will comply with what the consensus goes with. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't see the need to "air our dirty washing in public" when an issue is being actively discussed. Such tags are useful for sticking articles into various admin cats which can then result in editors visiting the article to carry out house-keeping to address the issue. Problem is that there is a massive backlog of articles, so if something is being delt with already, it doesn't really help to plaster a tag on the article. I guess i'm saying that sticking a tag on the article isn't going to fix anything. Thanks/wangi 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That tag reads "The specific information has been noted on the talk page". This is a dab page. Any missing information would be in this context. If you are merely repeating your previous self-contained arguments, I'd likely delete, as covered ground. And, with Stevie, I have no interest in recreating MOS:DAB de novo here. Bring convincing examples of existing disambig pages to counter the "Parliament" example, or indicate a candidate link that is a distinctly separate sense of the word in the "Freedom" example. The previous entries, however, fall into the politics/government sense of the Democracy chain of articles. - David Oberst 19:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wangi, Yesterday you suggested using the missing information tag, now you say otherwise. What has changed? BruceHallman 20:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oberst, the dab page has a 'talk' page, so that objection of yours seems baseless. BruceHallman 20:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To all three. We clearly have a disagreement. Yesterday, Stevie offered to enlist the help of mediation. I accept. Will you two other editors agree to mediation of this disagreement? BruceHallman 20:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest otherwise that since a clear consensus (both quantitative and qualitative) exists, it would be better if you would just let this go and move on to other matters. What will you personally lose by abiding by the consensus--especially since you have indicated many times that you are an advocate of democracy? At any rate, if you insist, then yes, mediation is within the realm of acceptability and I will be happy to participate in that. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce, nothing's changed - last night I was trying to meet you halfway, proposing a more appropriate tag rather than one aimed at another problem. Tonight you asked my opinion, and that's what I gave - I don't think any tag is really needed, they're not a magic pill which'll sort all ills.

I think mediation is a waste of all our time, and more importantly a waste of whoever else gets involved's time - there are much more important things to work on. I think there is a clear show of consensus for having the dabpage as it currently stands, however there's still plenty of work to be done with a page listing / bringing together types of democracy - that's where we should focus our energy (see comments at Talk:List of types of democracy#Merge Democracy (varieties) into List of types of democracy) rather then drag this matter on?

But, if you insist... then fine, I guess mediation it'll be... /wangi 20:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that this is a dab-page, not an article. If you place the tag (which I suspect would be quite a novelty on a dab page anyway), you are required also to place the "specific info" which is missing. With a clear consensus existing as to the singular democracy entry in relation to the established workings of dab pages, the onus is now on you to provide something other than "it is ambiguous because there is ambiguity because I say so" arguments. Similarly, my first requirement in any hypothetical mediation would be some response to the requests for examples, which you have been conspicuously silent on. - David Oberst 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, First, before I begin a process of meeting 'requirements' with you I need to know if you are willing to compromise or not. If you are not willing to compromise, proceeding would be futile. The last time I asked that question, your answer was negative. Second, I need to know if we agree on what criteria a link needs for inclusion on a DAB page. You have not answered that question that I have noticed, or at least I am not clear of your opinion. I recall you have previously have said that the article to be linked must have 'democracy' as part of the title? Or, just above, it appears that the article must have ambiguity demonstrated to your personal satisfaction, but you don't identify any objective measure, or is it your whim as a measure? I already see that your whim is extreme, I just don't understand the reasoning. BruceHallman 13:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie, I suggest you please re-read what consensus requires (per the Wikipedia at least). One key element: "Achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion." You three have not even answered most of my well considered questions, and you have not even granted that my opinion exists (by virtue of denying that I have a 'dispute'). You can falsely call this 'consensus' but per the Wikipedia definion, it is not consensus. Where was the collaboration for instance? Who has answered my very first question? [1] BruceHallman 14:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I for one did consider your position and found that I agree with your idea that types of democracy should be covered in the Wikipedia, but this particular page isn't the place. At this point, it seems that you just want to initiate semantics discussions and I don't go for that sort of thing. So, if you want mediation, go ahead and start that. Otherwise, the consensus is going to be sustained. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, who has answered my very first question? [2] BruceHallman 14:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"'If you are not willing to compromise, proceeding would be futile" - gee, I wish had known the end of this would be so simple. Okay then, I'm not willing to compromise. The idea of continuing a detailed exegesis of WP:DAB et. al. presumably has some sort of morbid fascination, but I'll pass. Presumably the reception of my revision with cheers, applause, a standing ovation and a Pulizter Prize has dangerously inflated my estimation that I know what I'm doing. - David Oberst 15:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is also my position that there is no compromise available within the confines of this particular page. However, I have indicated compromise with the idea that the Wikipedia should cover the full breadth of democracy topics, including types of democracy. So, for BruceHallman to suggest that we are simply uncompromising wooden figures is odd. We fully discussed this out and provided ample reasoning for our positions. And Bruce never did provide any live examples for his view of what a dab page should be. If there's anyone who should have compromised, it should have been Bruce, as producing evidence is the very fair "meeting us halfway" that the others in this conversation expect. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, calling me 'presumably...morbid' coupled with your sarcasm; and Stevie calling me 'wooden' makes it hard for me to assume good faith, and comes close to a personal attack. BruceHallman 15:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no one has answered my very first question. [3] BruceHallman 15:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And David, we need to establish what criteria that pages will need to meet in order to qualify for inclusion in this DAB page. It feels like I have asked that question a dozen times now, and we really need to clear that issue before we can productively proceed. BruceHallman 15:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess when all else fails, declare that you're being attacked, right? You indicated that you wanted to begin mediation. Since we're at an impasse, you will need to begin mediation or back away from this. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I still would like to be able to get along with you and collaborate. If you really feel that I am 'wooden' well, I think you are wrong, but calling me wooden makes it difficult for me to assume that you have good faith. BruceHallman

I think this is further evidence that you don't even read our replies, and that may be an indication of why there is an impasse. I never called you wooden. I said that you think that the rest of us are uncompromising wooden figures. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie, I am sorry for misreading what you wrote regarding 'wooden'. BruceHallman 16:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie, will you please explain the revert you just did to my edit on the page? Is it not true that "Concern has been expressed that this article or section is missing information about: Social/political democracy disambiguation links." ? Why did you revert that statement? BruceHallman 16:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again, no one has answered my very first question. [4]. If there is consensus here, then the 'major revamp' would have been discussed publicly prior to the implementation. It appears to have not been discussed in public collaboration so I do not understand how it is consensus. Will someone please answer[5]? David, would you please name the 'at least two other editors' by name? BruceHallman 16:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to mediation. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to get mediation to convince you to explain your revert? etiquette suggests that you shouldn't ignore my question asking you to explain your revert. BruceHallman 16:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a break and look at this again tomorrow with cooler heads. BruceHallman 16:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My head is plenty cool. I am dispassionately requesting that you begin mediation. Otherwise, it is the duty of the rest of us Wikipedians to defend the consensus, including the already stated consensus that the tag you want to add is unwarranted. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce, to answer your first question, I believe the discussion at User talk:Oberst/Democracy (disambiguation) was being referred to. -- Nataly a 02:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. Is there a good reason that this 'consensus' building was done in an out of the way place rather than on this talk page? Trying to assume good faith, and there may be something I don't understand, so I will try to refrain from speculation giving David, Stevie and Natalya an opportunity to explain. BruceHallman 15:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, it's the correctness of the content that matters above all else. Further, content gets created or reworked on user pages before deployment all the time, and per WP:Be bold and consulting with the majority (all but one) who would likely agree with the changes, the changes were deployed. If you think what occurred went against the community somehow, then mediation is what you need to start. However, it is not reasonable to suggest that a "hidden process" lead to a poor result, especially because almost everyone thinks the result is reasonable. When is the mediation going to start? Since you haven't started it, I can only assume that you prefer perpetual conflict over resolution. I hope that you will prove that assumption wrong. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I try to not ignore all your questions, and I hope that others do not ignore my questions. I have asked for help from a mediator here: [6], I haven't heard back. BruceHallman 17:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate your 'end result' logic. Regardless of the end result, I disagree that Consensus can be achieved with a hidden process. So, I also appreciate that you now describe 3:1 as a majority not a consensus. (Though, it is hard to not take offense when you describe 3:1 as 'almost everyone'.) You point to WP:Be bold, which includes ...But don't be reckless, and bypassing normal consensus building is not justified by WP:Be bold. BruceHallman 17:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of any vote taking place. However, everyone participating has demonstrated that they are on board with the current incarnation except yourself. A consensus doesn't require that every last person agrees. It usually means a vast majority agrees, and in this case, it's all participants (so far) minus one. I do believe this latest response is a part of continuation of argumentative stances that you have been taking, and this continues to be unfortunate. Lastly, we asked you multiple times to provide evidence for your position as a means for seeking a 100% consensus, but you never provided such evidence. I'm confident that mediation will bear this out. On top of that, we have standard practice of the Wikipedia re: dab pages on our side. Good luck. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already answered your request for 'evidence' of my 'position' [7] which you choose to ignore. What I am really asking for is a genuine consensus building process, to no avail. BruceHallman 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You are contending that an assertion is a form of evidence. Our request for evidence can be best summed in David Oberst's words: "Bring convincing examples of existing disambig pages to counter the "Parliament" example, or indicate a candidate link that is a distinctly separate sense of the word in the "Freedom" example." Do you have actual evidence? Unless you do, I'm afraid that your case in front of mediators will not have any weight. And you will have wasted all our time over nothing. That is unfortunate. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please point exactly to which of my assertions you are thinking off? BruceHallman 21:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing to the Parliament (disambiguation) 'example' amounts to a Strawman argument. What does it have to do with anything? Rather, that is why I suggest that we see if we can agree on what criteria to use for inclusion of a link on the Democracy (disambiguation) page. On August 1st Natalya suggested we use the "When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", " criteria. I think that is a good one, do you and David Oberst agree? BruceHallman 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You directed me to an edit that was an assertion, not evidence. I strongly believe David Oberst's evidence requesting questions were very relevant, and are key to resolving this issue. Many of us have already answered the question on criteria, and you know it--stop playing games. Just because you singularly don't like the answers does not mean they weren't provided. By the way, I will file for official mediation in the next few days unless it starts before I get to it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, exactly which 'edit that was an assertion' are you refering to? BruceHallman 22:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terminating the discussion from my perspective. This is a hopeless cause, from your "inability" to see a link in something you just wrote, to running us in argumentation circles, to asking the same questions over and over despite getting answers. Enough. For me, it's now mediation, or no further discussion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see that you answered my question(s). If I missed it, simply pointing to the 'diff' where I could find your answer would be helpful and would allow us to constructively proceed. BruceHallman 15:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that I know why the discussion took place there rather than here, as I was only directed to it a few days ago. -- Nataly a 15:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation or Arbitration

If most of the individuals in the consensus and BruceHallman, who is opposed to the consensus, will agree to mediation, by signing this section, I will go through the process of launching mediation on Monday, August 5, 2006 or soon thereafter. If it doesn't appear that we can get the proper signatories to mediation, I will instead seek binding arbitration (most likely before the end of next week). Please sign below if you will join the mediation. Thanks everyone. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read what makes a consensus. I don't think the prerequisites have occured to justify calling the status quo a consensus. BruceHallman 21:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your version of consensus is actually minoritarianism, where a single holdout can prevent a group from its natural consensus. 1) All your questions were answered (not to your liking, but indeed answered), and 2) You were the only person opposed to the consensus or status quo (whichever term you desire). This matter is documented as having been discussed in multiple circles on the same points. And the simple, fair questions posed to you to actually help you make your point were denigrated. This is documented. If you really wanted to resolve this in a proper manner, you would have done one simple thing to get things moving positively: tell us, out of the terms you want to re-add to the list, which are not subtopics of the predominant (top) version of the term 'democracy'. As you should know, subtopics of any other listed term don't belong in the disambiguation list. Arguably, we shouldn't even be listing links to varieties or types (per David Oberst) like we have in the "status quo" version either, but that's an issue for refinement. I suspect though that you can't or will refuse to find an example of what I'm fairly asking for. I came to the conclusion that I had little choice but to push forward with the proper Wikipedia processes for resolving this. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie, please point me to where you have answered my question: What criteria should we use to determine whether a page should be include on the disambiguation page? Natalya answered that question, [8]. I agree with Natalya, do you? BruceHallman 23:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not every single person supporting the "status quo" is required to answer your questions to your satisfaction. But even so, I already did on multiple occasions. We'll cover this in mediation. At any rate, you will agree that subtopics of democracy don't belong, correct? Since you didn't tell me one example from the list (of what are really subtopics) that should belong, I assume you concur that none of them belong. Therefore, that's proof that you're knowingly wasting our time. If you can't give us one example of what should be there and why, you have no argument. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie, not to say that you haven't already answered the question, but directing Bruce to where you have answered it will not only be not all that difficult, and will likely resolve a lot of the going back and forth between the two of you. -- Nataly a 23:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natalya, I appreciate your intervention, but I think you don't realize he's already asked and I've already answered several times already. This is what's known as a game. I refuse to play. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie, if you think mediation would be useful I guess it can't do any harm. I'm not familiar with the details of Wikipedia mediation, and am not sure what the basis or desired result might be here. Disambiguation pages would seem to have a fairly restricted scope for misinterpretation. My basic position is that Bruce's conception (or at least implementation) of a disambiguation page is completely at odds with actual Wikipedia practice. So far the five or six others engaged here seem to agree, at least implicitly, two being from Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. Is there some larger number which Bruce might accept as evidence that he might be mistaken? If so, perhaps more eyeballs is the answer. Or if he feels we are somehow missing his point, perhaps an interpreter or advocate is what he needs. If he feels that existing disambiguation practice is insufficient in this particular case, then endeavouring to rework WP:DAB/MOS:DAB should be his first step. However, if the presence of a mediator will act as an enabler to produce concrete proposals, examples, or reasoning from Bruce, than let's try that.

Do you intend to submit to the Mediation Committee? It seems a shame to waste their limited resources. If so, I'll wait until something happens there - lovely summer days are too rare up here to squander, and it looks like things are still going around in circles here. - David Oberst 05:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a shame. But Bruce won't lay out his criteria for inclusion beyond his vague notion, and won't provide examples for same, and keeps reverting the dab page back to a version that clearly violates WP:DAB (apparently he chooses to ignore "What not to include" and other text in favor of one sentence that he misinterprets). On top of this, I am tired of having to explain over and over again what I would include and exclude (due to his persistent repetition of the same already answered questions, which frankly has given the appearance of game playing), while he just hangs onto his vague notion without any details or examples. Based on the behavior we've seen repeated, I really want to jump to arbitration and get a final ruling, but the fair dealer in me wants to try the mediation committee first. As somebody who appears to be a supporter of democracy, Bruce seems to display a distinct difficulty of accepting (vast) majority rule, especially since our consensus is not only quantitative but clearly qualitative as well. At least three of us have now laid out our cases in quite a detailed manner, and Bruce's position remains vague after all this mess. Should we jump to arbitration? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 06:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see of the arbitration page, they'd likely reject it for not trying mediation, or being of the nature of a content dispute. I'm actually a bit surprised someone protected the page - Bruce's tags and revert haven't risen to the level of major disruption you see on some pages. I'd suggest saving any further debate on old issues until you hear from mediation. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to bed with a lady named Margaret Drabble. - David Oberst 08:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input on that. I didn't know if arbitration was a proper next step or not as I have never had to even go as far as mediation on anything before. I do believe however that Bruce has been disruptive, as he has been changing the page against the wishes of the consensus, oftentimes sneakily out of turn and without explanation for any of the terms he adds back, and as you (and I) say, has us going in circles, which in my book, is game playing, and therefore, disruptive. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I join the mediation

Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BruceHallman 21:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC) I welcome mediation of this dispute.[reply]
-- Nataly a 23:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC) I look forward to this being resolved in a hopefully calm manner.[reply]
David Oberst 05:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of my arguments

Here is what I will present to mediation as the arguments I made that have been easy to find on this page. This will have to suffice. If a party doesn't agree with or understand my arguments, that doesn't mean I didn't make them. Here they are:

The term we're disambiguating is "democracy", not "(qualified) democracy". Directing to a list of democracy articles or varieties/kinds of democracy is sufficient. from 19:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. BruceHallman 01:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just caught this today. You agree that "directing to a list of democracy articles or varieties/kinds of democracy is sufficient"? Ummm, then, what are we arguing about? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the list of democracy types article, (though I am not sure about the title). My issue is that some readers, when they search for 'democracy' and press 'Go'..., are actually thinking of a different article that Democracy. And, for some readers, the disambiguation page fails to serve. BruceHallman 14:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go beyond the vague here. Give us an example of an article that fits into your vision here. Give us something to have a real discussion on. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement that every last extension of the term appear on this page. We point to the list of democracy articles. That is sufficient. from 19:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. BruceHallman 01:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "taking sides" with moving all the qualified democracy terms off to a separate page. from 19:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. BruceHallman 01:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What David Oberst 20:40, 31 July 2006 said. His position is the primest example of a perfect response that you ever should expect to receive on the matter. from 21:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC) -- noting that is perfectly valid to say I concur with another's arguments as if they were my own.

Fine for you to concur. Regardless, I disagree and still invite David Oberst to explain his 'name in the title' criteria, as I don't see it in WP:DAB BruceHallman 01:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:DAB, under "What not to include/Related links": "A disambiguation page is not a collection of links of related articles or terms or anything similar. It is not a page to gather related meaning or concepts into one location." -- Clearly, terms like direct democracy and liberal democracy (which you added back--it's recorded) are related to the predominant/top disambiguated term. And under "What to include/Confusing articles": "For example, as a disambiguation page of Go, it is correct to add a link of a Canadian radio program called Go due to the confusing title Go. However it is wrong to add articles simply because it contains the word in concern" -- This seems to back up David Oberst's position. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for an extended list of all variations of "political/social" democracy on this page. That's what other pages are for. from 17:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. BruceHallman 01:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree, tell us which terms you would keep and which you would toss, and why. I still don't have any sense of your criteria for inclusion or exclusion (only a vague statement that the list should include terms anyone might expect when they think 'democracy'), but I've laid my criteria out much more clearly. What terms do you think people might ordinarily expect? Given your vague criteria, how would you then defend each term? Let's see your list of terms that belong on this page. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise that selects some qualified democracy terms over others? That's not POV? When I originally drafted this page, I thought I would select the few most applicable qualified terms that people might be looking for. However, with my current understanding, I now know this was incorrect. We're guiding the user to two pages (that will probably be merged) that shows them all the qualified democracy terms. Nothing is being hid from anyone. Therefore, the problems you imagine that would be healed by compromise don't exist, and your band-aid will only prime this page for future conflict. from 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Qualified terms are not my issue. Irrelevent, and I don't dispute.

BruceHallman 01:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, since direct democracy and liberal democracy are clear examples of qualified demoracy terms (subtopics of the predominant/top term), which you have been trying to re-add. The record shows that you are indeed disputing this. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here's proof that you do dispute it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did dispute is different than do dispute. I have changed my mind somewhat. You guys have convinced me that the page, a month ago, included to many links. Today, I believe it contains too few. I think that a compromise in the middle is appropriate. BruceHallman 14:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you have changed your mind since this very recent reversion? Further, if it contains too few, what would you add and why? What is the compromise that you propose? Can you not give us an explicit set of terms to compromise on? Yes, you would have defend every term--is that why you won't propose it? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've just explained that your POV issue is with democracy, not this disambiguation page. This page distinguishes between uses of the word democracy, and it links to democracy, which is supposed to provide the overall political/social coverage (with sub-articles) that you're looking for. If it doesn't, I wouldn't disagree with you placing an NPOV tag there. It's not the job of this dab page to list all the subdivisions and viewpoints about what democracy is in a political/social context. It just isn't. from 19:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand and misrepresent me. My issue at hand is with Democracy (disambiguation), not Democracy.

So, you are suggesting that when somebody types in "democracy" in search, this dab page comes up immediately? I hope not. This is not the first page anyone hits when they look up 'democracy'. The burden for leading the user to all subtopics of the predominant/top term belongs with democracy. Your vague statement of what belongs on this dab page suggest that perhaps a subset of those subtopics belong here. That would be unacceptable and incongruent with how all other dab pages work. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem is with democracy, not this dab page. It's not the job of this page to parse out what you want it to parse out. Nobody is questioning whether the topic of democracy is complex, and that's why we say that the overview article, democracy is the article charged with handling your concerns. from 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand and misrepresent me. BruceHallman 01:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick, I think most of us would sympathize with the idea that democracy means many things in reality, and has many subdivisions of thought in political/social contexts. There's probably no issue with that thought. But the problem is that the Wikipedia, as of this moment, is not set up to encapsulate such thoughts in disambiguation pages. It rather strives to be somewhat close to a standard encyclopedia, and therefore, the disambiguations are expected to be concisely restrained to consider variations only of the plain term. Luckily, we have articles that go down many of the various avenues for discussing what democracy is and can be in various contexts. And these things aren't hidden from anyone. from 19:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting thread of thought, when you write 'Wikipedia...is not set up' I think you might be thinking thoughts about what criteria is appropriate to use for inclusion of an article on a disambiguation page. Please write more about your thoughts here. BruceHallman 01:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've laid out clear inclusion and exclusion criteria in this section, while your inclusion criteria is vague (what people might expect) and exclusion criteria not expressed as of yet. Again, I and David Oberst have said this before, if you can find one other dab page that works according to your vision of "what anyone might expect", then please show us that. Wikipedia is not structured ("set up" was a poor choice of words) in the way that you imagine. I don't know what Wikipedia you have been working in, but I don't know of any dab pages that conform to your views. And since you have provided no examples of such dab pages, how can you expect us to come anywhere close to accepting your view? We can't read your mind, so give us hard examples. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm sure there's more... but I'm tired of searching)

Note of clarification: I considered all of the above my answer to "What criteria should we use to determine whether a page should be include on the disambiguation page?" I faithfully answered on multiple occasions, and so, I would like BruceHallman to again answer the question "Which of the entries you want to re-add are not subtopics of the predominant (top) entry for 'democracy'?" Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would help clear things up if you could restate your criteria in a sentence to two? I still don't understand you yet, and I would like to understand you. BruceHallman 01:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've faithfully explained my position. If you want anyone to come to your side of thinking, you might at least answer one of our questions once. And heck, my latest big question is simple. Just one example. Just one of an item you wish to re-add. Explain what makes it not a subtopic of the predominant/top term. I cannot budge one iota toward your position until I get an answer for that. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further thinking this, here's another tack: The angle argument below could probably be used as a short definition of what belongs (but I don't feel it's my complete argument, or the complete argument). Further, I can explain in one sentence what doesn't belong: Subtopics of the predominant/top disambiguated term (or any of the other dab terms, for that matter) don't belong in the list of disambiguated terms. If you agreed to that, wouldn't that then eliminate all the terms you wanted to re-add? Then, at that point, what would we be arguing about? Wouldn't you then have to say which dab terms you thought belonged but aren't there now? Let's say we go by your criteria that the page include any terms a visitor might be expecting when they think of 'democracy', subtracting subtopics of the predominant/top term (per my clear one-sentence position of what doesn't belong). What terms, then, do you imagine seeing on this page? If you can't give us that, then again, what argument are you making exactly? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where to you find your Subtopics of... criteria in WP:DAB? BruceHallman 19:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: I had also answered several times that what we changed this page to reflected generally how it is done on other dab pages, as David Oberst was also good at pointing out.

Further, to make a new argument: A dab page is supposed to cover different angles of a singular term. Not subtopics, ANGLES. None of the terms BruceHallman wishes to re-add present ANGLES that are separate from the predominant (top) term. None. Now, if Bruce can counter my position with an example from that list (as I've already requested), then have at it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean my 'ANGLES'? I would like a chance to understand your position. I may agree, or I may disagree. What is your position on the question: What criteria should we use for inclusion of an article in this disambiguation page? Do you agree with Natalya and me on this criteria? BruceHallman 01:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy (political/social context with many subtopics), and Democracy Player, are two separate angles of the singular term Democracy. Obviously, from your recorded actions, you consider that huge list of subtopics for the predominant/top disambiguated term to be different angles of the singular term Democracy. How are any of them a different angle? Give me one example. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Clearly, the Wikipedia rejects minoritarianism in decision making. There is one AfD dispute after another where an administrator makes a decision: It's either a consensus, unclear, or no consensus. I've been a part of many AfD's where there was some opposition to the AfD, yet there was enough to form a consensus to implement the deletion. Does that mean the opposition wasn't listened to, or that they weren't given a chance to understand and join the consensus (and vice-versa)? Of course not. There is no obligation in forging a consensus to ensure that every last person agrees before closing the discussion/debate. And certainly, we have what you might consider "case law" here in the Wikipedia to back this up. How consensus is handled in AfD and other spots in the Wikipedia is how we have to handle it. That's the precedent for how this dab page has been handled. We read each other's arguments, and re-argued them, and we came to and have stuck with a group decision, with the agreement of everybody except one. That is a consensus in the framework of Wikipedia. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie, I find it trying, when I offer to compromise and am concillatory, that you relentlessly come back with a fight. Please stop. Why do you feel such a strong urge to fight with me? BruceHallman 18:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen little sense of either compromise or conciliation from your position. In fact, I still don't know exactly what your compromise dab page would look like. I've asked you to tell us that, but you still won't do that. So, how can I work with you if you are not doing what you say you are doing? It's a bit maddening, frankly. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You even want to fight about whether or not we are fighting. Check your attitude. BruceHallman 17:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you say something that I don't believe reflects reality, I have no choice but to point that out. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:00, 7 August 2006(UTC)

You also have a choice to not point it out and to control your aggression and not provoke or extend a fight. BruceHallman 19:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, a 13 year old child doing a school paper from a part of the world that uses Parliamentary democracy could easily think of the search term 'democracy' and presses 'Go', when he or she actually expects to find an article Parliamentary democracy or even Westminster system. I realize that an expert, like you, would not have such a confusion. Not all readers are experts. BruceHallman 18:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Parliamentary democracy and Westminster system related to democracy? If so, including them breaks WP:DAB. I think they are related. They are subtopics. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At times Parliamentary democracy is related to democracy but in my example that is not relevant. Because, for some readers, like the 13 year old child in my example, when they think 'democracy' they think of democracy in their personal world. For them, the definition of 'democracy' certainly could be best described by the Pariamentary democracy and not the Democracy article. BruceHallman 19:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is an example of why it is necessary to reach an agreement about the criteria for inclusion of a link on the page. Is the criteria: "When a reader presses 'go', which article do they reasonable expect to find?" Do we (or do we not) agree to that criteria? BruceHallman 17:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about reading the entirety of WP:DAB, including what not to include? Once you have demonstrated that you are not being selective with this guideline, and also provide examples of what you want this page to look like, then we will have something to talk about. I'm really trying to get you to tell us what you want, but you continue to evade it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the 'not to include' guidelines of WP:DAB. BruceHallman 19:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple question. Please answer. "When a reader presses 'go', which article do they reasonable expect to find?" Do we (or do we not) agree to that criteria? BruceHallman 18:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal has been contacted

To allay David Oberst's concern about wasting the MEDCOM's time, I have opened a case with the Mediation Cabal. I think we should await their presence here before proceeding with any more discussion or actions. Thanks. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken, basically every mediator appreciate it when the parties in dispute find a way to resolve their dispute without intervention. My question posed below is a simple, yet important, question. Perhaps you might reconsider and offer an answer? BruceHallman 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also recently asked simple, important questions of you that have gone without an answer. Is that fair? Are you the "chief questioner" and "never answerer" of this page? Perhaps that is why we require mediation. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for not individually answering your group of recent questions. Let me try to answer them here. In essence, you asked me to show examples of pages I wish to disambiguate, based on the 'when a reader presses go' criteria. I did provide one example of that type, the 13 year old child, from a country with a parliamentary system of democracy, could easily use the search term 'democracy' when actually expeciting to find an article about pariamentary democracy. When I offered that example, I recall, you replied that it violates your 'top level' rule. BruceHallman 13:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could provide other examples, but that seems futile if they must meet your 'top level' rule. We should first discuss your 'top level' rule, and I am willing to hear your reasons that the 'top level' rule must be used, I may simply not understand your reasoning. BruceHallman 13:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I have not answered other important questions of yours, please re-ask or point to them, I promise to try to answer. BruceHallman 13:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing then that "parliamentary democracy" is not a subtopic (therefore, related term) of democracy? It's not my rule I'm arguing, it's a part of WP:DAB guidelines. I would appreciate it if you stop referring to this as something I have made up. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

predominant/top disambiguation

Steve wrote: "...predominant/top disambiguation, and are therefore ineligible for inclusion on the page." Looking at WP:DAB I don't see that wording. Could you please point exactly to the wording which you are reading? Hopefully an exact quote, no need to paraphrase. BruceHallman 13:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he was quoting anything in particular. However, the WP:D#Double_disambiguation section addressed the fact that is is legitimate to link to another disambiguation page or related page from a disambiguation page. Hence, we link to both Democracy (varieties) and List of types of democracy, which serve as disambiguation pages for democracy types. -- Nataly a 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Stevie was not quoting any Wikipedia policy in particular, I must then read his mind. Can anybody understand why I find that frustrating? Can we come to an agreement on a criteria to use for inclusion (and exclusion) of links on this disambiguation page? BruceHallman 05:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't require reading my mind to understand what I said, as I had fully laid this out before. Here I do so again, perhaps more precise...

democracy is the "predominant/top" disambiguation I am referring to. It's the predominant term of all references to 'democracy', obviously, but even if one amazingly disagrees with that, it is certainly the top-positioned disambiguation on this page.
WP:DAB states under "What not to include" (a section Bruce has to date not acknowledged), it says under a subsection "Related links": "A disambiguation page is not a collection of links of related articles or terms or anything similar. It is not a page to gather related meaning or concepts into one location." This means you cannot include terms related to other terms in the list, and I have made the argument that subtopics of democracy (all of the terms Bruce had previously restored back) are related to democracy.
democracy obviously has to remain as an entry on this page as it is the predominant meaning of and article for 'democracy'. Since subtopics of it cannot remain on the page according to "What not to include" in WP:DAB, they have been removed.

Does Bruce want to develop this page according to the entirety of WP:DAB, and not just one sentence of it ("When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result?")? If not, then that's one reason we require mediation... to clarify how we interpret WP:DAB. Certainly, we cannot observe one sentence and ignore the rest, right? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In essense, I don't see that collecting together a list of pages which are ambiguous for readers is prohibited by the 'What not to include' rules. If the items are ambiguous, then the greater purpose of WP:DAB 'to disambiguate' trumps. Logically, at its core, the purpose described in WP:DAB is to disambiguate ambiguous search terms. I agree that a list which is purely gratuitous does not belong. I even grant that the long page which I favored from a month ago too closely resembles a gratuitous list. My remaining concern is that the present 'Oberst drastic revamp' goes to far the other way. A compromise somewhere in the middle makes more sense. BruceHallman 14:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I (and I believe others) have already said that we don't agree with this position, which appears to be a weighting of some aspects of WP:DAB over others. Again, this suggests a need for mediation, to help us parse out the guideline and decide the proper weights of that guideline for this page. However, if you have a compromise in mind, cannot you be explicit about what you think that compromise should be? I have asked this before and it has continued to go without response. How can others be expected to compromise if we have no idea what you mean by compromise? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply amazed

... this is still smoldering away! Bruce, there are four or five editors who broadly agree on the page as it currently stands. However you still don't seem to consider that consensus and continue to ask questions on this talk page.

Might I suggest two alternative approaches:

Move on, accept the consensus decision (there are plenty of things needing attention!)
Be pro-active in your concerns - work on a subpage (or a page in your user area) and build up the disambiguation page as you would have it. Present the resulting page, perhaps with rational for including each article, to the editors here... With this method there is something real to discuss.

Thanks/wangi 14:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are definitely two constructive options. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 1) I guess that 'consensus' means a different thing to you than to me and the dictionary. A majority does not necessarily make a consensus, because consensus requires a process that did not occur here. I grant that several editors, including you, oppose me. I am disappointed that this position was not based upon a consensus building process. I hoped that Wikipedia had collaboration and consensus building at its core, in this case it did not. Regarding 2) I am being pro-active to object when I see Wikipedia bypass consensus building. But, to repeat, I think it is premature to proceed to offer suggestions when one, David Oberst flatly refuses to compromise[9] and two, when my compromises are to be compared to an unclear standard.

I would like to clear up and try to understand the standard we are to apply here. Is it the case that regardless of whether the link serves to disambiguate an ambiguous search, that if is is considered part of a 'top level list' that it cannot be included on a DAB page? That appears to be the criteria that Stevie favors, do you agree with Stevie on that? BruceHallman 15:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not merely what I favor, it is following WP:DAB guidelines. We all have to give guidelines weight over other ideas. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie, your post above[10] dated 13:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC) described your reading of WP:DAB. (By the way, thank you for that, it was helpful, I appreciate that.) Your posting includes the words "This means...". Really, when you say "This means..." that indicates your interpretation. I see that I have a different intrepretation that gives more weight to 'when a reader presses go' rule versus the 'no lists' rule. Obviously, the question is: How shall we balance these two competing rules as they conflict. BruceHallman 16:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why we need mediation. Since we both (and others) agreed to that, why cannot we wait for the mediators to engage this issue? We are at an impasse. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also again, I reject the complaint that there is some kind of issue because a proper consensus building process wasn't followed. I haven't yet see Bruce point to a policy or guideline that outlines what that process is required to be. Further, it's clear that we have engaged in an extended deliberative process after David Oberst's rework, and I have had an open mind with regards to what you want to do with this page, and that's why I asked questions to help you make your point. I still don't understand why you don't want to inform us of what you want to do with this page in explicit terms. As far as I'm concerned, I will summarily ignore further complaints of "no consensus" from here on out, as I consider it irrelevant and baseless. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce, you really do need to find that "can do" attitude (or "fair do") - it really does look like your discussing here ad nauseam simply for the sake of it! Thanks/wangi 16:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will try to take your advice to heart. Indeed, soul searching a bit, my persistence in general stems from outrage whenever I see a lack of fair play. Specifically, in this case, from a stream of veiled and overt[11] ad hominim attacks I have experienced from two editors. Though, it is my fault for dragging this out several days and not clearly expressing my anger over this poor treatment earlier. I feel like I deserve an apology, but I don't expect one. BruceHallman 18:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel insulted by your long stream of circular argumentation which took up a lot of our precious time, but I don't expect an apology from that either. Call it a draw. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Bruce will tell us why he is concentrating on this specific page so much. Why is this little out-of-the-way page so distracting for him? There's a lot of other work that needs to be done in the Wikipedia. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page not for related links or articles

For people who don't understand the meaning or use of disambiguation pages, please read the following (extracted and modified from the Wikipedia guideline):

“

Disambiguation pages

This is a page which list all possible links with the same "natural" title. It has no real content and is to redirect readers to their desired Wikipedia pages.

This page arises because there is often more than 1 entry which shares the same word or phrase. For example, the word "Go" is "shared" by the English dictionary to mean travel (verb), a board game called Go, an airline called "Go, and so on.

Confusing articles
Only articles or links which will arise from ambiguity or confusion (eg articles carrying conflicting title) are considered to be put in a disambiguation page.

Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result? (For example, when someone looks up 'Joker', would they find information on a comedian? On a card? On Batman's nemesis?) When there is no or low risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page.

For example, as a disambiguation page of Go, it is correct to add a link of a Canadian radio program called Go due to the confusing title Go. However it is wrong to add articles simply because it contains the word in concern (eg Going to a Go-Go should be excluded since there is slight chance of confusion).

”

For details, please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation (Wikipedia guidelines).--Wai Wai (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Wai Wai. I'm not sure if you've read through this lengthy talk page or not, but there is currently a lot of discussion and compromise going on, including a MedCab case, regarding how this page should be. Although it may not currently look like a perfectly MoS:DP-ed page, there are always some disambiguation pages that need to break a few rules. Compared to how it was in the past, the page has made leaps and bounds of progress, and should stay how it is for now. -- Nataly a 23:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read this talk page (briefy) before the edit. However I feel people are arguing something which has been determined already. That's why I come and do a fix. --Wai Wai (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically about the sections added which I reverted - the dabpage as it stands really doesn't have the level of content to require splitting into sections - to do so actually makes it harder for people to find what they're after, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Longer lists. Thanks/wangi 23:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of style issue. The section (my latter version) should not be a problem. For readers, they are just bold texts. The reason why I choose this formatting is because it is good for furture development. When the list expands, we need to make it into sectons anyway. Pre-laying out the structure is good for future expansion and development. It helps to guide other future but new editors on how to expand the list too.--Wai Wai (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you read the link that Wangi posted above, from the Manual of Style for Disambiguation Pages, but I'll post it again, since it specifically talks about separating out longer lists: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Longer lists. Until the page reaches a much longer length, there is no need to separate it out. -- Nataly a 14:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that long ago. I don't know if it is said by you. It is said to be a general rough guideline. It should not be treated absolutely. Occasional exceptions or common sense should apply when understanding these instructions. As I stated previously, I think my style is better than the suggested one because it facilitates furture development. When the list expands, we don't need to do extra work to make them into sectons when expanding. For visitors, they are just bold words/phrases. Pre-laying out the structure is good for future expansion and development. It helps to guide other future but new editors on how to expand the list too. Not all editors read the style guideline before they edit (anyway they are not required to do so).--Wai Wai (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, there are always cases when ignoring the rules is a good thing. One example was on this page when we were working towards an accepted version of it. However, there's really no need to section the page when there are only six links. Fifteen or so, perhaps, but Wangi's point that it makes it harder to find the appropriate article is valid. There is not much need to pre-lay out the structure when it doesn't take much time at all to section a page. Plus, for all you know, when this page actually accumulates enough links that require it to be sectioned, they could be about very different things then the sections you have created.

Regardless, I don't think we really need to get in a a disagreement over such a small issue. If you really feel strongly about it, you can always bring it up at the MoS:DP talk page to discuss changing the guidelines. However, I imagine you will find that there is a strong consensus for the current guidelines. -- Nataly a 18:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wai Wai, you probably don't have to worry about the whole previous history on this page, as your edits were primarily concerned with the stylistic formatting of the "minor" entries. I tend to agree with wangi that these are too few to require separation into categories, although I don't really have a strong opinion either way without looking at how similar dab-pages have come about.

I have removed the "list" and "varieties" links, which are no more dab-links any of the other removed ones. I kept them on only as a stopgap, and they are now linked on the standard "democracy template" included at democracy and elsewhere. wangi, I've removed the "varieties" article once again - hopefully this will explain why. Remember, anyone typing "democracy" goes there, not here - as far as I can tell you get to this page mainly from the "see (disambiguation)" link there or on one of the other "minor" articles. Finally, MOS:DAB gives the School (disambiguation) example, in which a term pointing directly to an article is set out separately at the top of the "(disambiguation)" page - since this seems to be a direct parallel with this case I have formatted in this way. - David Oberst 00:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind adding those links into a "See also" section, but I understand the reasoning to keep them off. -- Nataly a 01:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it were like the See Also on freedom, which points to a third distinct article (Liberty), and is the target for the phrase, as "democracy" is not, it might make sense. This page, however, is likely to be low traffic - people are either going to come from one of the minor pages, or from democracy looking for one of the minors. If they have already been to democracy and have come here from the disambig link at the top looking for one of the related or subarticles, then democracy isn't doing a good enough job of directing traffic. - David Oberst 02:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it makes sense to keep them off. :) -- Nataly a 02:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David wrote: "you get to this page mainly from the "see (disambiguation)" link there or on one of the other "minor" articles." More like 'article'. I see only one link from a 'minor' article. BruceHallman 14:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the page as it currently stands. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]