Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:DEFINING

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Target of WP:DEFINING

[edit]

Reverted to redirect to the WP:Defining disambig page --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2011 hundreds of discussions (e.g. on talk pages and at CFD) have linked to WP:DEFINING. The link has also been used many times in edit summaries. It's unlikely that any of those are/were intended to refer to a dab page. Note: If you do change a redirect to point to a dab page then it's normally considered good practice to fix the inlinks; in this case that would mean editting hundreds of (archived) talk pages, closed CFDs etc. I (and probably other editors) have been linking to WP:DEFINING over the last few weeks unaware that it had been changed (do you watchlist every shortcut you use?). DexDor (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to do that, for incoming links it's still clear what was meant, whether that was the definition of defining or NON-DEFINING, one of its implementations. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What advantage is there in changing a well-established shortcut ? Do you think WP:N, for example, should be changed to a dab because "N" could mean many things ? What do you mean (in edit summary) by "a bot will take care of it" ? DexDor (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion on whether it should change, but I find DexDor's reasons fairly persuasive. Certainly, if it does change, it should only be done if all of the backlinks are corrected. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I put the {{incoming links}} template up.
WP:DEFINING should never have been created as a redirect to something that doesn't contain the definition of the defining concept, only a particular implementation of it.
No matter how long the misleading redirect existed, I corrected it 2 months ago. So, that's two months of a more correct redirect, that should not be swept away either. Please correct the backlinks for those two months too.
Further, there's no harm in someone meaning to refer to WP:NON-DEFINING, typing WP:DEFINING, and anyone who follows the link seeing there are two places about the same concept, one with the definition, and one explaining how that definition applies to the creation of categories. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, starting the backlinks correction:
I saw that all of these needed to link to WP:CATDEF, not WP:NON-DEFINING, so redirecting WP:DEFINING to the same place as WP:NON-DEFINING is definitely fallacious. Disambig works best until all this is sorted out. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not you would prefer people to link to WP:NON-DEFINING is irrelevant - the fact is this is an existing shortcut that people have _already_ used (hundreds/thousands) of times. A shortcut is a shortcut and it makes no sense to say you "corrected" it. It may be reasonable to change the page it links to so that it mentions the other page, but it's likely to be confusing for someone (e.g. whose category has been brought to CFD) to be pointed to a dab page. Please also see WP:EDITWAR (which I've also now watchlisted the redirect, looks like that's something I'd best get into the habit of doing). I hope you aren't planning to edit closed CFD discussions etc - and, of course, you can't change edit summaries. DexDor (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both are about the same concept, so a disambig page is not "confusing" or whatever, for the older and archived discussions. The only problem is that WP:NON-DEFINING (the place you keep redirecting to) does not contain the definition of the concept, only its application for the (avoidance of) creation of certain categories. As I've shown above (with the examples of corrected redirects), WP:DEFINING is often used in the sense of when an article should be *added* to an existing category, for which one needs to know what it means in the context of categorization of articles, so WP:CATDEF. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As both are about the same concept then why do you think a dab page ("when a single term ... refers to more than one topic") is needed (rather than linking to one of the interlinked pages, preferably the one it's been linked to for several years) ? Sure, there may have be some cases where the CATDEF link is better and if you can show that it's overwhelmingly the case then retargeting would be appropriate (like happened here). Note: It's not unusual for foo and not-foo shortcuts to link to the same place (e.g. WP:OR and WP:NOR); having both gives more flexibility in fitting shortcuts into sentences (in particular in edit summaries).
Wikipedia:Shortcut#Changing_shortcuts says "If ... used in any closed deletion discussions, it is not a good idea then to change the redirect because these discussion cannot be edited.". If you persist in changing this shortcut then please at least fix those resulting anomalies that can be fixed (e.g. the link to WP:DEFINING at Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles). DexDor (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've put a note at Wikipedia_talk:Shortcut#Discussion_at_a_WP_shortcut. DexDor (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the shortcut goes to a place that doesn't contain the definition of the concept, that definition is in another guideline.
Again, those clicking the link from a closed discussion aren't "misdirected" in any way, neither would the redirect to the disambig page obfuscate in any way what argument was made in the closed discussion by the one who had used the shortcut. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing well known shortcuts. The question of who fixes incoming links is trivial—the main point is that many editors know what WP:DEFNING means and they use it accordingly. A widely advertized RfC would be needed before changing a shortcut like this. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"many editors know what WP:DEFNING means and they use it accordingly" — What about those who don't know what WP:DEFINING or defining means? They're most likely to click the link, like I did some four months ago (in this discussion) and come to a place that only explains how the concept is applied, not what it is. It took me another two months to figure out that there is indeed a guideline that explains the concept. So no, the problem doesn't go away by just denying it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a wikilink in the section linked that takes a reader directly to the other section that defines the concept, so I'm not sure why this would take two months to discover if a user was interested in finding out more. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who do you think put the link there, and when? [7]
I still think the disambig page is clearer for those not knowing what the concept means, and thus click the link. I see no "harm" done for the regulars using the shortcut knowing what it means. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it really matters who put it there, or when—my point is that now there is a link between the two, so it's probably not as big of a deal as it was for you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the disambig page is a better solution for the newcomer, and no harm done for the regulars, nor for the archived discussions. That's my argument, not that I have already taken other steps to clear the sky on this (after I had found out on the missing link...). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think what some of the other commenters here are saying is that harm is done by changing it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other considerations:

... of course, one can't make sense of the last paragraph of WP:NON-DEFINING before first understanding what is meant by defining as explained in the other guideline.

My general point is that this has been badly mismanaged in the past. No reproaches, it is sensitive matter, and it is not unusual that that then leads to virtually inintelligible wording in the guidance. Time to put things straight though. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's another solution to bring the two together, while indeed it is the same topic: [8] Ideas? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:DEFINING&oldid=629210601"