Talk:Lost work

Partial disambiguation

Please don't insist on this page listing two random "lost works by NN" just because those two happen to have stand-alone articles, User:Johnbod. The usefulness of that (a reader landing here when they really want lost works of a specific artist) is not nearly compensating the false impression only two artists have lost works.

You have been informed of our policy regarding partial matches: A disambiguation page is not a search index. CapnZapp (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am following normal disam policy; things that "happen to have stand-alone articles" get on the page, things that don't, don't. You have offered no explanation for wanting to depart from normal policy. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am following normal disam policy No, you are not. Or rather, please link to the specific policy you are referring to. Otherwise, per MOS:DABNOENTRY you need to explain why you think an exception from WP:PARTIAL is warranted in this case. As I stated above, I believe those two entries do more harm than good. In the meanwhile, I'm again reverting you, giving you a new chance to walk away. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that either MOS:DABNOENTRY or WP:PARTIAL are relevant here. I'm not one of those editors who can be scared off by brandishing a couple of random policy links. Please explain why you think these apply here. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so now both of us have placed the burden on the other to explain what we are basing our position on. I can go first:

I'm reading On a page called Title, do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name and concluding that we should not create entries for "Lost works by NN" on the disamb page for "Lost works". That's the formal policy-based part: basically that Wikipedia disambiguation pages are not meant to be search indexes. More in general, I am arguing that by only providing two (or fifteen) such entries we misrepresent the wealth of knowledge available on Wikipedia. A much better approach would be to have a list article providing links to the large number of snippets scattered all over the site; I mean we have information on lost works by a very large number of artists. Since that article doesn't exist, the next best thing is to link to our three lost works articles, which do go into detail about individual artists (though I'm not claiming they are comprehensive, since I don't think that is the goal of the contributing editors of each article).

Just so this bit isn't missed: I did follow the advice to use the {{look from}} template. Hopefully you saw that under See Also.

Now your turn. I expect you to go into more detail about what you base your position on than a vague and noncommittal following normal disam policy, the only thing you have said so far regarding your own actions. One thing though; please be careful before pointing towards examples of other disambiguation pages ("they're doing it so we can too") - that's generally a poor substitute for policy.

CapnZapp (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]