Talk:Enchiridion
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Just for ancient/religious usages of the term Enchiridion, or all usages?
[edit]I'm unclear about the rationale for reverting [this change] which added a modern Enchiridion, and separated out another modern usage of the term. Both modern usages are notable, in that they are documented in Wikipedia. The differential treatment of the Enchiridion of Sextus Pomponius, which is not documented except in a stub description of its author, seems somewhat remarkable. At the very least, it seems to render ambiguous the purpose of a disambiguation page. Trankuility (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- The purpose of disambiguation pages is to disambiguate between ambiguous terms; they're not a list of related subjects. The section WP:DABNOT specifies which terms should not be included in disambiguation pages; that's why those two entries were removed and why the entry on Pomponius is useful. Now that the article The Enchiridion! has been created, it should be included, which I've done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. It strikes me that WP:PTM is more applicable in this context, and it supports inclusion of the two relevant articles, subject to a caveat on editor consensus, which you are withholding. I don't see how WP:DABNOT actually supports the Pomponius article and not the other two. This is particularly the case since the subject of one of the two links was added to the disambiguation page without contention in 2010 and you have just re-added it as a separate article. What, in particular, is the concern over The Intersex Enchiridion: Naming and Knowledge in the Clinic by Morgan Holmes? Trankuility (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see what kind of partial title matches are allowed by WP:PTM, consensus or not; they are all disallowed. The difference between Pomponius' work and Holmes' article is that the former is more likely to be the subject of an article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. It strikes me that WP:PTM is more applicable in this context, and it supports inclusion of the two relevant articles, subject to a caveat on editor consensus, which you are withholding. I don't see how WP:DABNOT actually supports the Pomponius article and not the other two. This is particularly the case since the subject of one of the two links was added to the disambiguation page without contention in 2010 and you have just re-added it as a separate article. What, in particular, is the concern over The Intersex Enchiridion: Naming and Knowledge in the Clinic by Morgan Holmes? Trankuility (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)