Talk:Transparency

Transparent gases

Aren't gases always transparent? Smoke and fog are perhaps not really gases. - Patrick 03:10 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Chlorine, maybe? -- Tarquin

expectations

that Animals and Minerals will end up in a seperate page. Mion 19:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Because of extensive listings. Mion 21:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Dictionary.

Correct, by following the Disambiguation Style Disambiguation Pages Manual of Style,and the The Manual of Style in the future, it will be easy to port the whole page in the Wiktionary and drop the Disambiguation page. Mion 19:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

InterWIKI reason

One of the reasons for updating this page is that a lot of the Interwiki links are not present or linking to the wrong page.

• One way to achieve this is the future use of Wiktionary.
• For the time being : Maybe trying to get the right Disambiguation pages connected.
• Through the Disambiguation page it's more easy to find the right page so these can be linked directly without going over the Disambiguation page
• In this case it helped that Transparent and Transparence where on the same Disambiguation page.

Mion 20:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

REDIRECT

To make this page working it is neccesary to make a REDIRECT page Transparent to Transparency.

The need of the Disambiguation page or Wiktionary

• The entry from internet into Wikipedia:
• Still, in its very nature a search engine will shift results on transparency (in this case) on a basis of payed contributions and a mix of Wiki entrys, personal , or corporate websites or other sources. It will also present results on basis of Geolocation.
• As a result there shall be 1 or 2 lines (or none) on the first page of the search engine on wiki transparency. following these links you have a change of 1 in 20 or 1 in 40 (at the moment) to end up in the right article about transparency.
• See there the need for Disambiguation pages and backlinks, or in the future Wiktionary, to find the right article.
• (Next to the internal Wiki search engine, listings, Portals and Categories).

next:

• 3 things to mention and will be worked out:
• 1.Backlinks : Why and how do they look.
• 2.The AMB bot, because its ads backlinks automaticly.
• 3. The last thing to solve. i made some corrections in the page, to follow the AMB name style, which where not followed om the name of te article for different reasons.

Mion 22:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

MoS:DP

It looks like a lot of the article was written without reference to MoS:DP. I have done a quick pass to clean up the worst of it. Please read MoS:DP before considering reverting any changes.

the change from Duckbill is reversed. Mion 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In its nature I had a look on the mos DP, this is a exceptional page, because Transparency and Transparent are on the same DP page, there is no other way (sofar) to get the interwiki pages linked.

any other way to do so, suggestions are welcome Mion 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please provide me with a pointer to a relevant interwiki link so that I can understand the issues you are alluding to. Thanks, Duckbill 12:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

About removing all the Transparent links. If you make a REDIRECT in wikipedia Transparent to Transparency then the Transparent links will be on this page as well. Mion 01:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

splitting these will create major problems in the interwiki links. Mion 01:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please provide me with a pointer to a relevant interwiki link so that I can understand the issues you are alluding to. Thanks, Duckbill 12:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through all the entries under "Computing, mathematics and engineering", and none of them were appropriate, so they have all gone — each one is explained in a separate edit. Duckbill 12:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through all the entries under "Material", and none of them were appropriate, so they have all gone — each one is explained in a separate edit. Duckbill 12:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

EITI

Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative is on the main page because it is in Transparency (humanities) and in Transparency (market) business./markets and politics.

Transparency (market) being a (not that distinct) special case of Transparency (humanities), I do not see the point. Also, one could easily disambiguate to both topics on the page itself, as I did for example in Transparent Factory. -- Ravn 11:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It should not be on this page. Who will think of EITI or "Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative" solely under the term "Transparency", and then try to find that, or accidentally link that, in Wikipedia? No-one. Yes it contains the term "Transparency", but that is not a good reason to put it on this disambiguation page. WP:D "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices." Duckbill 12:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Things named "Transparency" and transparent things

A few questions.

Mion, please explain why you removed the link to Transparency (Guatemala). People looking for this party should be disambiguated from this page.

people should go to Tranparency politiks AKA Tranparency (humities) for this item. Mion 06:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, why is the list of transparent animals and materials kept on this page? This is supposed to be a disambiguation page, and not a List of transparent things. Transparent Mion 06:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Duckbill, let's also discuss why you removed the information that there are an album and an artist called "Transparent".

Thanks in advance for your answers. -- Ravn 11:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC), Ravn 11:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Re removal of Music, that was in an edit about removing Animals. Looking at the entries, it looks like they could be argued as valid, so it may have been an edit clash. I'll put the music entries back. Duckbill 12:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OK just went to put the Music entries back and they are coming back as Red Links, i.e. links to yet-to-be-written articles. They don't appear to be sufficiently critical meanings to warrant Red Link entries. So I'll leave them out for the time being. Duckbill 12:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ack. IMHO they should be mentioned though, maybe without the red link. E.g.:

• Transparent is also the name of an album by Jason Morphew.
• Transparent is also the name of a trance music artist.

--Ravn 13:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Re Transparent animals & materials. You're right, they probably shouldn't be here; this page is about disambiguation for the term "Transparency", not a free association for all things related to "Transparency". I've removed Animals again, carefully, with more explanation this time. I should eventually get down to the minerals and review each one. Duckbill 12:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Re "Transparency (Guatemala)", Mion put in the comment "+removed is already in *Transparency (humanities))". Yes that is true, it is linked from that page. However, the purpose of a disambiguation page is to provide direct links for things which could be referred to using that term. The political party in question appears to be called "Transparencia", which translates as "Transparency", so it could be referred to using that term alone. Assuming that it is valid to have a Wikipedia page for "Transparency (Guatemala)", then it should be linked from here. Duckbill 12:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Full Ack. -- Ravn 13:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't finished with the whole thing.

• 3. The last thing to solve. i made some corrections in the page, to follow the AMB name style, which where not followed om the name of te article for different reasons.

Mion 22:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You both agreed on removing all the links om Transparent. This is exactly why de interwiki links to NL and DE are direkting to the wrong pages. If you make a redirekt to this page accept the links to Transparent. Or remove the redirekt and start a seperate page for it.

Transparency (Guatemala) is about transparency in politics, partys like this pop up 5 a second, because its a trendy thing to do. So its supposed to be under humanities. Reg. Mion 23:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Reg. Mion 23:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Split

Transparent has been moved to its own page. Mion 05:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No objections. However you should definitely format it according to MoS:DP. Especially the section about not using pipes. Having four links apparently pointing to Transparent (animal) is very confusing.

On the other hand, what you have at Transparent is not a disambiguation page, but a search index. A disambiguation page is to help differentiate between terms when there is a risk of confusion. No one will confuse Celsian with a Wet t-shirt contest.

I do not see your point yet in creating that page, but I will check your interwiki examples and maxe up my mind afterwards. -- Ravn 15:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

no but if you are looking for a transparent mineral and you are on the wrong page, how are you going to find the other minerals ?Mion 19:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Like I said about the naming of the links need more attention. There are some options, renaming the article etc. Mion 19:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

interwiki links

Please provide me with a pointer to a relevant interwiki link so that I can understand the issues you are alluding to. Thanks, Duckbill 12:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You can check them on the left bottom side yourself.

In german its the same issue. de:Transparenz(optical) de:Transparent

In dutch transparent and transparency are on the same page. nl:transparantie nl:Transparantie (optiek)

What happends is that if people make a titel they have the choice of naming it " transparent proces" or "proces transparency". Which are both common in several languages.

Lets say you go interwiki and follow optical and go over different languages, there you can find out that there is to much confusion. Mion 05:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems that came up is that the terms TransparentTransparencyde:Transparenzde:Transparent and nl:transparantie nl:Transparantie (optiek) are used in different sections (aka humanities/materials/computing) in different languages. To get rid of that i made a page with both terms on one page.

Maybe an idear to declear this page a special page within Wikipedia. (Lets vote) Mion 05:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I recall, disambiguation pages should not contain interwiki links (But I may be wrong). They per se cannot identify the same topic in different languages. For example, when you disambiguate transparency in English between optical transparency and a presentation slide this does not apply to German, where there is a clear difference between Transparenz and Transparentfolie. The reverse is also true - in German, Transparent means both transparent and banner - no need to differentiate in English. Therefore, the disambiguation page Transparency should not relate to de:Transparenz. Transparency (optics) however does. You can create interwiki links, once you are sure what you are speaking about, but not on a disambiguation page (IMVHO). -- Ravn 16:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

however if you place them both on 1 page, (then you dont have to define the difference between the two) which you can do in EN, DE and NL, there are no more wrong links left. And I am not the one who is putting these links on the pages, interwiki bots and people do, I look at the results only, and try to figure something out that works. Like I said, its more a naming IssueMion 19:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Transparency (optics)" should be at top

I am thinking that "Transparency (optics)" should be at the top of the page.

MoS:DP says "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below."

The primary meaning of "Transparency" is that of it being a property of certain materials which means that one can see through them.

Other meanings of "Transparency" are metaphors based on this quality, where one concept works through another concept.

The primary meaning should be put at the top. Unless I see some credible objections, I may make the edit. Duckbill 00:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is now done. Duckbill 14:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"Transparency (optics)" could have a better-written summary

The summary for "Transparency (optics)" currently reads:

• Transparency (optics)— a transparent object is one that can be seen through, including

This isn't good style:

1. the use of the dash is not normal. In this case it appears to be the n-dash, which is totally off.
2. it describes the meaning in terms of a related word rather than the word itself
3. it uses the passive tense ("can be seen through")

I would suggest a different wording which avoids these problems:

• Transparency (optics), a quality of certain materials which means that one can see through them

I may make this change if I don't see any credible objections.

Duckbill 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is now done. Duckbill 14:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Using sections contravenes MoS:DP

MoS:DP says:

If the list is longer than a single display page (more than thirty entries), use level 2 section headers instead (or in addition), as on Aurora (disambiguation).

I can see twenty links here, so section headers would not be indicated here.

We would be better off using introducing one-line paragraphs rather than sections.

Duckbill 01:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and will make it so. -- Ravn 13:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC) I'm confused. I reverted my edit.

Did you mean to remove the section headers completely? I won't object, but I consider the "thirty" items a suggestive value, not a strict rule. The page is longer than a single display page on my system. -- Ravn 13:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What I was thinking of was one-line introducers like the ones on Reading. On my system also the article Transparency cannot fit on my display. However I think the number of items is sufficiently small that the vertical scroll is sufficiently small that the average user can "take in" the whole page at once. Reading doesn't fit on my display either, but I think it works well with just one-line introducers. Duckbill 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. My opinion is that section headers give a better optical structure. Reading does not look very well laid-out to me. If I understand it correctly, the MoS:DP even suggests to use section headers in such a case. Sections also have the additional advantage that a table of contents can lead the user directly to the correct part of the page. -- Ravn 15:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

This is an attempt at informal mediation in reaction to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-14_Transparent_-_unsupported_reverts_by_Mion. --Fasten 12:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you require mediation? --Fasten 18:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently not. I will close this case. --Fasten 16:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Is your current problem still as stated in the request for mediation? --Fasten 16:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, gr. Mion 16:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The dispute was about Mion reverting changes made by Duckbill, without any explanation, only a note saying that he would comment later. The changes made by Duckbill seem to be the currently active version. --Fasten 14:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Mion: I assume you would like to revert and you can provide an explanation? --Fasten 14:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, a revert on transparent (transparency is fine), and links to the other page on each page. Gr. Mion 00:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Transparent Mion 00:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm quoting the mediation request:

"Mion came along and reverted these changes, without any explanation, only a note saying that he would comment later."

Mion: If you already provided the explanation please give me a link to it, otherwise please provide the explanation. --Fasten 15:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Mion came along and reverted these changes, without any explanation, is through, Duckbill was cleaning out the page transparency, removing the content from tranparent, explaining it without considering the opinion from other people in this case me. I noticed that 6.00 AM, reverted it, to have a look at it in the afternoon, to discuss the thing with Duckbill, the discussion was already going on for a few days.

== So it looks like we would be good to go on replacing this article with a redirect to "Transparency".

Duckbill 01:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

tomorrow I will give some answers why I reverted. Mion 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC) ==

[[1]] [[2]]

My adds are ment to get the interwiki links to NL and DE in line.

The need of this DP page, if 1 of more terms are close to eachother

• Transparent sheet (projection)
• Transparent bridge
• Transparent latch
• Transparent Network Substrate
• And secondly in the DE wiki there is also a page de:Transparent which cannot be linked to Transparency

Gr. Mion 17:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Duckbill : What's your position? --Fasten 11:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This case needs a new mediator. --Fasten 11:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Two pages needed

This appears to be a mixture of an article and a disambig page. I think the two should be separated. Biscuittin 17:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The initial paragraph is limited to explaining that the various other meanings ultimately flow from the original meaning, so they're not just unrelated things. A very brief comment such as this is appropriate in a disambiguation page; it is not at all the same as an actual article. Michael Hardy 18:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

restoring backlinks

All backlinks from the articles to the DP have been removed by Neelix with the argument :(Transparency does not redirect here. Please see Wikipedia:Hatnotes#Disambiguating_article_names_that_are_not_ambiguous for an explanation of why this is an error.)

My point is transparency doesn't have a subset like tree, and that is why this DP exists including the backlink, until consensus is reached, read Wikipedia:Disambiguation for the reason of the backlinks. Mion (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has already been reached on this issue on the link I provided. You have not given a reason for an exeption to the guideline in this case. What do you mean by a "subset like tree"? The other hatnotes I created were removed without reason as well. Neelix (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 72.146.43.188

I have reverted the edits on this page by this user. Please make your posts again without editing other peoples comments. I do not have time to sort through your edits and work out which are new comments and which are changing other peoples. SpinningSpark 12:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Poem

transparent is the fairest tint, for it allows hind sight
it's hues themselves an Eden are, teeming with quintessential subtlety