Template talk:Mathematical disambiguation

This template was considered for deletion on 7 December 2010. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Could you be more concrete about the purpose of this template?

I'm not sure I see its usefulness. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here. --Zvika 06:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted move

I reverted the undiscussed move/rename of this template. The name that has been established for this template is "mathdab". Only four pages directly use "mathematics disambiguation" and two of those used mathdab before AWB converted them. On the other hand, 269 pages use "mathdab". — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The move is to what is right. Your statistics having binding value would mean we could never move a template. Rich Farmbrough, 22:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The name "mathdab" is well established as the name of the template for math disambiguation pages. That name is well used and had been stable for years before it was moved. These factors all suggest that the established name "mathdab" is the "right" one.

Also, it's just as easy for editors and scripts to write "mathdab" as "mathematical disambiguation", so there is no maintenance advantage in the renaming. When all the uses of a template use the template itself, and there are no redirects, I agree we would not expect to move such templates very often at all.

The main reason (I think) the move went undetected is that templates are not well represented on watchlists, and the person who did the move did not leave a notification for the mathematics wikiproject that the move had happened. That's not un-natural; perhaps the person thought the move would have consensus. In any case, I reverted it until there is a genuine consensus that the new name is better. New editors are not going to be making mathdab pages anyway, so I don't see much advantage in making the name easy for naive editors to use. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er.. yes... let's keep new users of Math pages, they belong to Carl. That is something I have sensed for a long time. Rich Farmbrough, 00:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Let's add some anecdote. My fist introduction to Wikipedia was through disambiguation pages. My first (recorded) edit was a mathematics talk page, and my fist article creation was a mathematics page. So naive users will certainly be involved with both disambiguation pages and mathematics pages - I can see no reason why they might not be involved in creating (or understanding) mathematics disambiguation pages, unless we place barriers like this in their path. Maybe more "naive users" would understand templates with understandable names. And indeed they might use them. I think that would be a good thing. I'm sorry you think otherwise. Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see this discussion. I don't see why we need to discuss this move. There's no reason not to move it. Moving a page (and keeping the resulting redirect) doesn't disrupt anything. People can continue using {{Mathdab}} if they so wish. The page should be moved to Template:Mathematics disambiguation for three reasons:

Template names should be written out in full just like page names in any other namespace.
{{Mathematics disambiguation}} conforms with {{Disambiguation}} and nearly all other disambiguation templates.
Using "Mathematics" avoids the "math" vs "maths" debate.

Moving the page will not affect users who know the page but other users are less likely to be confused. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those is a reason to move the page, though. As I pointed out, all but 4 of the uses are for 'Mathdab'; nobody seems to use 'Mathematics disambiguation'. The name "mathdab" is commonly used to refer to the template in discussions. Those are reasons not to move the template, as doing so would indeed cause minor confusion among the people who already know the name should be 'mathdab'.

The claim that template names "should be" written out in full is a matter of personal preference. In practice, there is no such policy or guideline, and template names are very often abbreviated. One reason that many disambiguation template names now have spaces is that you (Mclay1) moved them... so that consistency is a circular justification. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are reasons to move it; you may not agree with them but they are reasons none the less. Of course Template:Mathdab will have more in-coming links than Template:Mathematics disambiguation because it's the older name. However, changing the name wouldn't "cause minor confusion among the people who already know the name should be 'mathdab'" because Template:Mathdab would redirect to Template:Mathematics disambiguation so there's no harm done. I moved many of the other disambiguation templates to bring them in line with Template:Disambiguation, which I did not move but it had consensus. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands Template:Mathematical disambiguation redirects here, which would also resolve any(purported) confusion by new users who try to use the longer name. Indeed if the worry is that some people won't know the name, it's better to just create redirects from the likely other names; that's not a reason to move the template. "Having a space in the name" is an exceptionally weak reason to change the name of this template, which has had consensus for a long time, as evidenced by the use of this name in template calls and in discussions. If there was a problem with the name not having a space, presumably the math wikiproject would have already run into it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't get it, "mathdab" means nothing. We are not trying to restrict editing of Wikipedia to programmers and mathematicians, rather the reverse. Good software engineers know that 99% of the time readability is the prime consideration. Good software engineers know that 99% of the time readability is the prime consideration. Good software engineers know that 99% of the time readability is the prime consideration. Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

"Mathdab" is the name of this template, and it means "the template to put on mathematical disambiguation pages." The choice of name does not restrict anyone from doing anything, and the template name is perfectly readable as "mathdab", given that "math" is the standard abbreviation for mathematics and "dab" is the standard abbreviation for disambiguation pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, math is not standard, second dab is Wikipedia jargon. Blending the two together is even more obscure. The rest of your arguments are as much reasons for you not to be edit warring with everyone as for them not to make improvements in the first place. Stop trying to defend the indefensible. Rich Farmbrough, 14:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

If you feel that the name that was used for the template for years, by numerous editors, is "indefensible", you are not sufficiently neutral to handle the template. If there was a consensus in the light of day that all these templates have to have particular names, I would of course honor it. But there is no consensus here at all; the move was not even announced, much less discussed in the light of day. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This template most assuredly needs to be renamed. I only see one person defending their own revert here. So let me throw my name in the hat, and that name is {{Mathematics disambiguation}}. All the reasons thus far given by the other two editors involved range from pretty good to excellent. The reverter and single dissenter wrote fair reasons to keep the short name, but they seem to completely overlook the fact that there will be absolutely no actual change since the old name will be redirected to the new, clarity-filled long name. And the old name ({{Mathdab}}) should be used as a shortcut to the new name identified on the /doc page with the {{tsh}} template. The idea that seasoned editors would be confused by the change is (I'm so sorry, CBM) just a bit ludicrous, don't you think? An admin I've worked with over the years is in the process of changing the redirect category (Rcat) templates from "R from (to, with, etc.)" to "Redirect from (to, with, etc.)" for the same reason. As they put it, ". . . it would be beneficial because . . . template names should be as clear as possible." I agreed with them then, and I agree with RF and Mclay1 now. Please rename this template quickly, as there are new editors joining us daily. – PIE ( CLIMAX ) 09:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the redirect, {{Mathematics disambiguation}} appears to be the desired new name for this shortcut. Let me suggest that template be renamed to {{Mathematical disambiguation}} so it will be consistent with Category:Mathematical disambiguation. – PIE ( CLIMAX ) 21:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done – There is now a REDIRECT called Template:Mathematical disambiguation that can be used for this move (over the REDIRECT). I'll wait a couple days, and if nobody herein sets forth a new and better argument against the move, then I'll move this page and make it a shortcut. – PIE ( CLIMAX ) 03:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is no argument in favor of the move, not that there is no argument against it. There is no reason to think that new editors would be using this template in the first place - how many new mathdab pages are created per year? And, given that there is now a redirect from {{Mathematical disambiguation}}, if any new editor did use that name, it would work, which seems to undercut the idea that a move would actually help new editors (given that the actual uses are not being changed). — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there are arguments, good arguments, for the move as outlined above by two other editors and myself. As I said, the arguments against the move are generally fair with the sole exception of seasoned editors being confused by the move. Frankly, Carl, it's difficult to understand why you seem so dead against this move. Why is it such a big deal? Also, as far as new editors using the long name, the problem with that is that the actual template itself has a name that may be confusing to them if they were to type in the long name or click on a link. I for one absolutely love using shortcuts to make the edits go faster, especially when I'm ten or twelve tabs/pages deep into my edits; however, I do see the need for actually naming templates with clear names like "Redirect from plural" rather than "R from plural", and like "Mathematical disambiguation" rather than "Mathdab". – PIE ( CLIMAX ) 21:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they click on a link, they will be taken to the template page, which has complete documentation. So the title of the template will again be of little importance, and will not help new editors (if such editors exist). By the time an editor is dealing with disambiguation pages, they will be more than able to cope with the name of the appropriate template being "mathdab". — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be correct, but are you sure you're correct in all, or even most, cases? I know some editors who began their Wikipedia experience by editing dab pages. It certainly doesn't hurt to make things clearer to new editors. Please try to understand. Nothing will change for you, and thank goodness! I would want to continue to use the Mathdab template myself. All this move does is to clarify the name of the template. That's all. The Mathdab template will still be available for our use. – PIE ( CLIMAX ) 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mathdab → Template:Mathematical disambiguation – The name is clearer, uses actual English words, avoids the math vs maths debate and conforms to nearly every other disambiguation template (see above for further discussion). McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move. For reasons cited by Mclay1, I fully support this move. Then template {{Mathdab}} may be added to the Documentation as a template shortcut. – PIE ( CLIMAX ) 12:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week oppose stability of interface is an important factor in design of systems, there is also a case that its easier to remember and type. Also I can spell dab but not disambiguation without having to look it up. If we were to have just one name for the template I would stick with mathdab as thats what known by the people who use this template. A redirect is OK but there is a slight loss in utility as it mean there is another bit of information to remember: the fact that {{mathdab}} and {{mathematical disambiguation}} are one and the same. --Salix (talk): 14:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opposition reasons are noted. You mention "stability of interface". Please explain how moving this page and then using the Mathdab template as a shortcut would undermine that stability? You won't ever have to spell out "disambiguation" since the Mathdab template will be a shortcut to {{Mathematical disambiguation}}. Nothing will change for you. The move will make this template's name clearer to editors who are new to improving dab pages. None of the people who use this template now will be in any way adversely affected. Nobody will have to remember that the two templates are one and the same, or in other words, they can both be used to accomplish the same thing. Redirects like this template will become actually add to the utility, because they may still be used by seasoned editors, and the not-so-seasoned editors will use it as a shortcut, as well. This move simply adds to the clarity of Wikipedia editing. – PIE ( CLIMAX ) 17:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New editors can already use the redirect from {{mathematical disambiguation}}, so moving the template won't help with that. At the same time the existing pages will still say "mathdab", so moving the template won't help with that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for a common sense move. I don't see why this should be controversial. There is a clear trend to rename templates to use English words. The stability argument can be discounted as a redirect will be created. Lmatt (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a redirect the other direction; in what way is that insufficient? — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This new name is better, see the reasoning by Mclay1. Lmatt (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support {{Mathematics disambiguation}} (or "Mathematical" will do) - as a typing short-cut Mathdab is fine, let the canonical name be made of real words. Rich Farmbrough, 10:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.