Wikipedia talk:Cross-reference

This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Page moved, 9 January 2013, from Wikipedia:Multiple-cross-reference page to Wikipedia:Cross-reference, see discussion.

untitled

So far, Real-valued function is the only multiple-cross-reference page conforming to this proposal. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.... and now there are three. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

I fail to see the point of this. Even more, I consider these kinds of pages detrimental. Take Kernel. It used to have a "Mathematics" section, but it has been split into a separate page, Kernel (mathematics). Questionable enough. Then that page has been modified to point to two "multiple-cross-reference" pages, both of which neither contain complete enough information to be useful to anyone, nor prominently point to articles which do. Now, if one lands on Kernel and wants to read about a kernel of a linear map, they have to click through three levels of indirection, the last one being the most confusing of all. Insanely stupid.

And I believe this has not been properly discussed before being put into practice. I found one lukewarm discussion in the WP:VPPRO archives. I think this is not enough. Keφr 19:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no response, I boldly restored sanity to these pages. Keφr 06:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring sanity to those articles. I added the following guideline to the main page to hopefully avoid such instances in the future: "Other MCRPs that are linked from a MRCPs should be clearly marked as such." Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of making it a guideline

...has been made at Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines#Accepting_.22WP:Multiple-cross-reference_page.22_as_a_guideline. Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to WP:Cross-reference

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Multiple-cross-reference page → Wikipedia:Cross-reference – The term "multiple" seems redundant, and the corresponding page on disambiguation is found at WP:Disambiguation, not WP:Disambiguation page. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, as suggested - Nabla (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved entry

I moved the following entry to here, because it needs some clarification before reinsertion. Currently, it appears to encourage implementing MCRPs to save articles that are formatted as dictionary definitions. If implemented as a policy, a note at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary explaining the difference may be suggested. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a Wikipedia article that fails to be developable beyond a dictionary definition of the word or phrase that is the article's title. Consequently that article fails to earn its status because Wikipedia has a policy forbidding articles that consist only of a dictionary definition. Those who believe that such an article cannot be developed beyond such a definition may propose its deletion on those grounds. However, one may consider whether such a page might become a multiple-cross reference page, especially if many other pages already link to it.

It's not a necessary distinction

I fail to see the problem calling such pages disambiguation pages when they have no content, and stubs when they do have content. What void is filled by this concept? Randall Bart Talk 18:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A page may have no prose text but yet dealing with an non-ambiguous term, and a page may have content but not enough of it to justify inclusion as a stub by the content itself. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]