 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
how do you sort these 5 shapes (retangle,hexagon,pentagon and triangle)using 2 attributes?
Subscript text
no i dont know how —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.121.139.50 (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if wikipedia talk pages are meant to be a QA, but without number of sides as an attribute, you can use angle and distance. Or even just the total of the angles to work out the number of sides. 86.173.197.26 (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
entries
edit@Uanfala: Why do you put some WP:PTMs in the See also section and not others? For instance, why include Attribute clash, Attribute hierarchy method, and Property (disambiguation) and not Attribute domain ? And why not include other entries such as Attributes of God in Christianity? Just wondering your thinking here.
Also, in the Attribute (grammar) redirect, you made the comment: "generic contexts (like inside a disambiguator in an article title) "grammar" refers to, well, Grammar, which is the natural language concept and not the one to do with programming languages". I think it's entirely reasonable for that redirect to link to grammatical modifier as you have done. However, Attribute grammar is not about programming languages per se but about Formal languages, as with Formalism which is about mathematics and logic. Anyway, it seems Attribute (grammar) could reasonably redirect there as well. Maybe it would make sense to put a hatnote at the top of grammatical modifier such as
Finally, the dab entry "a specification used to define an attribute grammar, in formal languages" should be capitalized (A specification...), but more important it's also a WP:PTM. The attribute concept in attribute grammar is already listed as an entry as Attribute (computing) so this is actually a repeated entry the way it is now. I would suggest making it an entry in the See also section, such as:
- Attribute grammar, a concept in formal language theory
Coastside (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up. I've left Attribute clash, Attribute hierarchy method in the See also only because these entries were already included here and I didn't have the time to investigate whether they ought to be removed (at first sight, they look like they ought to go; I won't object if you remove them). Attribute domain, I think, is much more obviously a subtopic (or a related topic) to Attribute (computing). In Attributes of God in Christianity, "attribute" is simply an instance of the everyday use of the word, so there's no reason for including that (people looking for the topic won't just type "attribute" expecting that to take them there). As for Attribute (grammar), I haven't really looked into that, I was only reusing a definition form an old dab page at Attribute (grammar). If the attributes discussed in Attribute grammar are simply specific instances of Attribute (computing), then I agree with you, the entry can be removed altogether (unless there's a compelling reason to list it in the see also?, Personally, I'd just add an {{intitle}} entry to cover all these articles).
- If you believe "Attribute (grammar)" could refer to the formal languages concept, feel free to add a hatnote as you suggested. Personally, I avoid hatnotes for terms that are not natural languages expressions (parenthetical disambiguators are simply artefacts of the way we sometimes do titles here, not elements of how readers should be expected to make searches), so I'd rather the redirect were deleted than have an awkward hatnote like that. – Uanfala (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Uanfala: Sounds reasonable. I deleted the entry for Attribute grammar since it's same meaning as Attribute (computing). The rest, including the hat note, we can leave as is. Thanks for explaining your thinking.Coastside (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)