Talk:Pied (disambiguation)

Redirect use

Re [1]: On the dab page for "X", we tend to use the redirects of the form "X (phrase)", unless X is an acronym and the redirect points to a title which is just the acronym spelled out. WP:MOSDAB#Where redirecting may be appropriate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which (to clarify what the MOS says and what I presume JHJ is saying) does not mean that an X (phrase) redirect MUST be created for every entry on the dab page. Just that that kind of redirect can be useful and there's generally nothing wrong with it. Propaniac (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. But, if/once it exists, it should be used. And creating it can sometimes avoid other dramas (not here; I've created them elsewhere when strange objections have been raised to something's inclusion on a dab). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any suggestion in the MOS that if such a redirect exists, it should be used; it appears to me to up to an editor's discretion whether to use it, and MOS:DP#Synonyms supports simply linking to the title of the article when that title is a synonym of the disambiguated term, as with pied/piebald. As for Pied (act), here's the thing: you're going to have to add a description anyway to make clear that this is the right link if you're looking for the past tense of hitting someone with a pie, and that description is probably going to be some form of "the act of hitting someone with a pie," so the "(act)" really doesn't add anything by way of clarification. I'm not that agitated about it either way, because this is hardly a high-impact concern even as dab pages go, but I'm expressing these thoughts in the interest of achieving the best, clearest page. Propaniac (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the MOS has conflicting information. On one hand, they discourage use of piping and redirects, on the other hand, they give examples of when they are useful. I guess my own take is that it is the most useful to the reader to link to the actual name of the real article whenever possible, and in this case both articles are no longer named "Pied," which is probably a rather unique situation. It probably also is not a moral issue. Sigh... onward through the fog. Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOS is not giving conflicting information. It states that the guideline that "piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages" is "subject to certain exceptions as listed below." One of those exceptions listed is when the term being disambiguated is not included in the title of the article corresponding to the entry in question. Check out the James Carrey example; linking to Jim Carry is incorrect because it is the name "James Carrey" which is being disambiguated. Similarly, the entries on this disambiguation page should include the term "Pied" in the link. Neelix (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in this case, you are linking to two articles that no longer exist. I think Propaniac had the previous set of edits and that worked for me, with only one last mild tweak. Here, I think it is problematic to lead people to wrong article titles over and over and the MOS comment that when possible the real name of the article is best used should govern. Montanabw^(talk) 03:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are referring to by "two articles that no longer exist." What two articles are being linked to which no longer exist? Neelix (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects: Pied (act) and Pied (pattern). Sorry I wasn't clearer. Montanabw^(talk) 23:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not clear what you mean. The Pied (act) and Pied (pattern) pages were never articles; they have always been redirects, and those redirects still exist. What is the objection to using them on this disambiguation page? Neelix (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because overall, it is best to avoid redirects, particularly when they don't link to the actual article's name and thus may lead to confusion that two articles exist and then create MORE redirects in other articles (which has been a mild problem we are having with piebald.) Montanabw^(talk) 04:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming back in: why do you think it's best to avoid redirects? No redirects link to the actual article's name; all redirects redirect from a different name. Linking to redirects in articles is not a problem. See also WP:R#NOTBROKEN: "There is nothing inherently wrong with linking to redirects." If a particular redirect is a source of confusion, it might be deleted through the WP:RFD process. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe we are wasting all this bandwidth on this issue. Is it not preferable to simple link to the proper article name?? Maybe we do need to RFD the redirects. Montanabw^(talk) 20:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't always preferable to link to the article name (I dropped "proper" there because redirects can also be properly named). On this page, I see no problem with linking to the redirects, nor do I think the other titles (Piebald and Pieing) would be difficult for a reader who was looking for "Pied" to find. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize there is a place for exceptions. (Just did one, in fact, for a different disambig page). But here, the redirects were created about a week ago, when all this nonsense started, they go to nothing other than this disambig page, and they seem to have no use whatsoever. I just put prod tags on both. I really don't want to care about this, but I can't imagine anyone searching for "pied (act)", (If you aren't already a wikipedian, you won't have a clue about the use of parentheses in titles!) they will search for "Pied". Redirects are to aid searching or to send people to renamed and moved articles, etc... Montanabw^(talk) 21:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) No one is suggesting that anyone is going to type "Pied (act)" or "Pied (pattern)" into the search bar. What is being submitted is that these two redirects are the most appropriate titles to which entries on this disambiguation page may link. As has been already demonstrated, WP:MOSDAB is in line with this submission. Neelix (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but WHY??? First off, "pied" in reference to the pattern is actually archaic use. If there is something at MOSDAB that specifically says "create redirects using parenthetical title because it's a possible logical title even though no one will ever search for it," do give me the direct quote -- I see nothing on the page that suggests this was needed. I am utterly confused why this was needed in the first place, particularly for a two-item list that has crystal clear titles to both relevant articles. Montanabw^(talk) 04:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I listed the redirects at AFD. Also note this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things described as pied, seems this is an ongoing thing, eh? Montanabw^(talk) 05:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I argued in support of List of things described as pied being deleted, which it eventually was, because it was an indiscriminate list. The current disambiguation page is not an indiscriminate list. Your statement that "no one will ever search for" the pattern known as pied or piebald by typing "Pied" into the search bar is not justified; such an occurance is quite probable. That is why this disambiguation page exists. If you were really arguing that no one would ever type "Pied" into the search bar when searching for the pattern, you would have started an afd for this disambiguation page, not rfd's for the links in the entries. Neelix (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I am fine with this disambiguation page, in fact, it's small, but appropriate (it's that or dab pages cross-referencing the other article, which would be a vandalism magnet, IMHO) . I did NOT say that no one would type "pied" into the search bar, I said no one would type "pied (act)" or "pied (pattern)" -- or at least, if I was unclear earlier, that is what I meant. I agree, people looking for both piebald and pieing may well type "pied" into the search bar. It's the redirects I don't like because I think they contribute to confusion rather than eliminating it. Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]