Talk:Second-order

Untitled

I don't understand the reason for your removing my editing on this article. The information given in the article is misleading and doesn't link to the article on this topic.Daniel the Monk (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel- This page is a disambiguation page, not an article page. DAB pages follow different rules from article pages, and are not intended to expand on topics. This page is about the topic "Second Order", not Poor Clares. The reference to Poor Clares reflects the fact that the Poor Clares article states that it is also known as "the Second Order of St. Francis". The link goes to that article. Robsavoie (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rob. The problem with the version you reverted back to is that there are other Second Orders besides the Poor Clares, as I was explaining in my edit.Daniel the Monk (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel - There's no denying the most recent edit you made has useful information, but it doesn't satisfy the goal of a disambiguation page. The idea for a DAB is that there should be one link that takes you to a specific topic, in this case about second-order. For example, the link to Perturbation theory has a complete section describing second-order perturbation theory. In the same way, my original link to Poor Clares takes you to a page that specifically states that that group is know as the Second Order of St. Francis. None of your links take one to a page that contains the phrase second-order. Please read WP:DAB, which contains "Do not include articles unless the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article.". My suggestion would be that you edit those pages of other religious second orders to include references to how they may be described as "second-order", then add links to those pages as separate new bullets under the Religion section of this page (e.g. *Poor Clares = 2nd order of St, Francis, *other nuns=second order of other friars, etc). Or perhaps you would like to write a complete article about Second Order (religion) and have that linked here. You reverted my revert before concluding our discussion. That signals the beginning of an edit war, for which I have no desire, so I'm not reverting you again. But I am removing your first link to "second-order" itself, which is self-referential. Robsavoie (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me! There is such an article, but I forgot to add the link to it. Done now. Daniel the Monk (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I had waited a couple of days for a response to my last comment. It seemed that the discussion was over. Daniel the Monk (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]