Talk:Kale (disambiguation)

re: one link per line

I just looked over the wikipedia guidelines for internal linking at Wikipedia:Linking. I can't find anything that states there can only be one link per line. In fact even the guidelines on linking have more than one link per line. I think that there are enough people who are unfamiliar with the term Romani that it is valuable to have an internal link here. AJseagull1 (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind: Wikipedia:MOSDAB AJseagull1 (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formalistic or user-friendly? Etymology essential here.

@Bkonrad: hi. I think we've had it before. I'm dealing with a large complex - a good dozen pages dealing with terms used in the Muslim world for fortified sites, grouped into two families - and I'm trying to give users an easier access to what I found out after doing lots of work. Making it easier for them than it's been for me - the ultimate goal of any WP editing. Like always, if a term does NOT have an article of its own, I am absolutely confident that it serves the user much better to give them a minimum of a definition (and here the connection to the family of terms is the definition), than just put up a dry list, with a "see also" hatnote at best. Such dab pages may well evolve into articles or the info be adopted in related articles, when it can be removed from the dab page after placing a link; until then, parking a few essential lines there harms no-one. You on the other hand, are coming in after the work was done and lacking the bigger picture, invoke some WP guideline, and cut away what I know is useful to the confused user, because I've been in their shoes until a few days ago. I am open to any constructive ways of making the wording more concise, but between offering an essential info and not doing it, based on "guidelines", it's clear to me what way to go. "Etymology doesn't belong on dab page" is a typical such formalistic approach. Says who? WP rule number one is: if you know you can improve an article, ignore the guidelines. Not basic rules, but guidelines which only have the role to recommend, not to impose. They're not axioms, laws of nature or some deity one might revere. So please, when all you either can or are willing to offer is an "ex cathedra" type of a statement, like "etymology doesn't belong on dab page", all I can say: Aye, aye, Sir, but no, no, Sir, we're not in HM Navy here. I see you're putting much (most?) of your energy on WP in enforcing guidelines; I'm not, I'm looking for knowledge and trying to pass it on. Police is needed, but see the current discussion in the US about how it can overreach and do more harm than good. I'm certainly law-abiding, which includes the No. 1 law on WP, but first and foremost trying to use ration as the ultimate corrective.

So, if "Kale is a species of cabbage in which the central leaves do not form a head." deserves to sit at the top of the entire page, as if the cabbage would cover all bases, then down at place-names the Muslim word for fortress, with its many variations from region to region and which is found in the majority of the listed items, a 2-line etymology which replaces a not-yet-written article, is certainly reasonable. Your personal sense of formal adherence to guidelines vs the user's benefit. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Leschnei: hi. Please do read my answer here above to Bkonrad, it suits to a degree the Rabat (disambiguation) page. I appreciate many of your edits there, but there is no article on "rabats", articles such as "rabad" link to it for that reason when the term 'rabat' needs to be explained, so having a short, concise definition with a minimal etymology is essential. Do you have the time to create a new article on "rabat"? If yes, no problem. I don't. As long as this remains the case, please leave that half-a-line there (plus ref), it doesn't harm anyone, really, but does help those who want to understand something about Muslim fortifications. Without it they just get the runaround, between rabat - qalat - robat - ribat -... Thanks, Arminden (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]